Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued
ap ^ | 6/26/05 | HOPE YEN

Posted on 06/27/2005 7:46:07 AM PDT by mathprof

Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

At issue was whether the file-sharing services should be held liable even if they have no direct control over what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free. As much as 90 percent of songs and movies copied on the file-sharing networks are downloaded illegally, according to music industry filings.

The entertainment industry said it needed protection against the billions of dollars in revenue they lose to illegal swapping. Consumer groups worried that expanded liability will stifle the technology revolution of the last two decades that brought video cassette recorders, MP3 players and Apple's iPod.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: filesharing; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last
To: Happy2BMe

Yeah seriously, besides the 3rd... which of the Bill of Rights is intact?


41 posted on 06/27/2005 7:59:26 AM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick
This will probably be addressed in Congress in a week or so when everyone from the NRA to the auto-manufactures to tech companies realize this will screw them (and us) to the wall.

The Supreme Court has done more damage to this country in the last week than Bin Laden could ever dream of doing.

42 posted on 06/27/2005 7:59:34 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mathprof
Has the Supreme Court Shown the Hand of Authoritarian Free Enterprise?

Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued

Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses


43 posted on 06/27/2005 7:59:37 AM PDT by Happy2BMe ("Viva La Migra" - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

Inhofe?


44 posted on 06/27/2005 8:00:08 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

The House impeaches, the Senate conducts the trial (unless they decide to abandon their Constitutional responsibility entirely, as in 1998).


45 posted on 06/27/2005 8:00:11 AM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
Well personally, I think this is a good decision. Not because it makes file sharing software companies liable, but mainly because it may shut them down!

I own an software company that publishes software to restrict access to objectionable content on the Internet. The majority of our customers are parents and their kids all install file sharing programs. These companies make their money by secretly installing ad/spyware, and they could care less what problems they cause because they do not have to support their products. It costs us tens of thousands of $$ each month to support these users because of problems caused by the adware/spyware programs.

I realize this is not the purpose of the court decision, but I hope these file sharing companies get sued back to the stone age. Their irresponsible tactics cost consumers literally billions of dollars annually. As far as I am concerned, I don't care how they get nailed, as long as they do.
46 posted on 06/27/2005 8:00:15 AM PDT by SOSCEO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Impeach all but Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia. Rhenquist is gonna retire, so that leaves two. Clone them and fill the court...

/fantasy


47 posted on 06/27/2005 8:01:25 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

The standard expressed by the court was that there had to be a "clear expression" of intent or other conduct to "foster infringement", which it found threshold evidence of in this case. Does anyone know what that threshold evidence is? It's probably laid out in the case, which I haven't read.

The key to how bad this is going to be is how little or much evidence there there needs to be to make the threshold.


48 posted on 06/27/2005 8:01:41 AM PDT by B.Bumbleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Correction:

I'm contacting both my Senators.

Inhofe and Coburn!

Check out what my other Senator is up to....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430565/posts


49 posted on 06/27/2005 8:01:45 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Be glad that this court didn't get to see a gun case.


50 posted on 06/27/2005 8:02:00 AM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yak

This is NOT about theft, so you can get off yer high horse.

This is about LEGITIMATE networking protocols, the same as the ones that are shipped in the OS you are using RIGHT NOW. Under this ruling Microsoft can be held liable, because they "aided and abetted" the theft of copyrighted music.

The P2P nets are used for a LOT more than just downloading music and movies illegally, they are used by corporations for file sharing, I know of several online games that use it to process patches to the games, and the weath of knowledge as P2P networks move forward enriches us ALL, as the technology grows. Yes, people are abusing it - but now we'll get *zero* growth, because who in their right mind would invest in ANY new file sharing technologies, when this ruling give Hollywood and the music industry carte blanche to shut you down in a microsecond? Have you no idea how this ruling is going to be applied across other technologies as well? A user rips off a movie with his Tivo unit - Tivo gets sued out of existence.

This is BAD. Very, very, very bad.


51 posted on 06/27/2005 8:02:03 AM PDT by ByDesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SOSCEO

>>As far as I am concerned, I don't care how they get nailed

While I'm sympathetic to your situation, and I believe very strongly in intellectual prpoerty rights myself, we should all care very much HOW someone gets nailed. Our own liberty may depend on it.


52 posted on 06/27/2005 8:02:43 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

I'd love to see either one of these guys as President someday...

Oklahoma voters have their heads on straight to elect two real patriots like Coburn and Inhofe to the Senate.


53 posted on 06/27/2005 8:02:48 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
The court did NOT say technology is at fault.

Doesn't anyone here read? From the first sentence of the article:
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday


Now someone mentioned this is like making cars illegal b/c they might be used for an illegal purpose. This is not the case, and the primary intent of cars is not for an illegal purpose. The SCOTUS makes a distinction here.

BTW, the decision was UNANIMOUS, so even Thomas voted for it.
54 posted on 06/27/2005 8:02:55 AM PDT by Yak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign

Thank you for explaining that to him.

Lawsuits will be the death of this country.


55 posted on 06/27/2005 8:03:05 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Yak
The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal

And this ruling is like saying that, if I were to use the Pennsylvania Turnpike to get away from a bank robbery, that the Turnpike Authority can be sued for it.

56 posted on 06/27/2005 8:03:24 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

unanimous 9-0 opinion!


57 posted on 06/27/2005 8:04:06 AM PDT by minus_273
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Bastards again!!! I'll download more and more files...


58 posted on 06/27/2005 8:04:42 AM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign
This is BAD. Very, very, very bad.

It could very well be a means to shut down a site like FR - make it to where ISPs won't take the risk of a site engaging in fair use, and block it.

59 posted on 06/27/2005 8:04:43 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Actually, doesn't this mean that FR can be sued for abetting 'theft' when people post articles from other places they're not suppose to?

I tried to tell people over a year ago that such a ruling like this was dangerious to FR, but nobody would listen and some even said I was wrong.

60 posted on 06/27/2005 8:04:55 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-191 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson