Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued

ap ^ | 6/26/05 | HOPE YEN

[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.

[ConservativeMan55]

Foxnews Announces that

NO RETIREMENTS WILL TAKE PLACE.

We're gonna have to impeach!

[ConservativeMan55]

[JohnnyZ]

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.

That's my reading as well.

[Yak]

Please refer to post 54.

[alessandrofiaschi]

I share you opinion... even if I use it to "share" music and other files. But remember that many of them were born before 1940!

[CedarDave]

Thought I read earlier on here that Fox said O'Conner would retire. Changing their story now?

[Dominic Harr]

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.

You're definitely not wrong.

Now we're going to have to see what the court considers 'evidence' of theft being a primary use.

[alessandrofiaschi]

Yes. Please give us a link to read this (wonderful) news.

[ConservativeMan55]

Apparently they are.

[Paul C. Jesup]

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!

FR is file sharing forum.

[minus_273]

actually you couldnt be more wrong. a socialist would rule the otherway around, ie there is no intellectual property and therefore they are not responsible

[Mr. Nobody]

Brick makers best beware: A person using your brick to smash through a car window may make you liable for the stolen vehicle.

OK, that may be bit much, but Slim Jim makers may be sued I guess.

[ByDesign]

Not only that, but this can convict on *intent* - not actual theft. All it will take is a good lawyer(s), who can convince a jury that Company A "intended" to rip off the music industry because they failed to do enough to stop any *potential* abuse, and it's bye bye Company A.

Given enough money, I can hire a legal team that can convince a jury of ANY "intent" I want.

[Mr. Nobody]

"guns kill, not people. gun manufacturors held liable for all gun related deaths."


This ruling says as much. Guns are, indeed, made for the sole purpose of killing someone. They may not be made for the specific purpose of murder, but they are a significant instrument of murder.

I expect this ruling to be abused against guns and many other currently lawful devices.

[Mr. Nobody]

What was the significance of the BetaMax ruling?

[Paul C. Jesup]

actually you couldnt be more wrong. a socialist would rule the otherway around, ie there is no intellectual property and therefore they are not responsible

No, socialist will chose the side which will government the most power.

[general_re]

They are completley overturning Betamax, which said TECHNOLOGY is not at fault. People are.

With file-sharing, they are ruling that people are not responsible, but that technology that can be used for legal purposes IS THE PROBLEM.

It's really not quite that bad. "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," appears to me to mean that if you sell or promote your software or device as a copyright-infringement machine, you may be in trouble. If, on the other hand, you don't promote the actual infringement of copyright, don't sell your software as a tool for violating copyrights, and instead promote it as a legal tool for legal purposes, you should be okay. It's all in how you sell the thing, now.

[SOSCEO]

FR is file sharing forum.

FR was not created for the sole purpose of distributing copyrighted material illegally. Grokster and all the others like it were. There is absolutely no question about that. FR is also moderated and makes it public that respects intellectual property rights.

[Mr. Nobody]

"I am contacting my Senator now.

I know he'll listen."


You forgot the /sarcasm tag.

[FlatLandBeer]

Can this be used against Gun Manufactures?