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 ...
You could record tv shows and back up your CDs without being sent to jail for doing those things.
That was just William Kristol on Fox News Channel saying that he has a hunch O'Connor will retire (just like back in 2000 when he had a hunch that McCain would beat Bush for the GOP nomination).
Maybe we can employ the power of Voodoo dolls to expidite vacancies on the Supreme Court . They seem to be godless anyway.
I'd just like to say that I think it's wonderful that we have so many esteemed legal scholars on this board.
It was a 9-0 ruling folks. That means that all of these judges- from Stevens to Scalia- agreed on it. Maybe, just maybe, these 9 judges, most of whom graduated top of their class from top law schools, know a little more about the law than posters on the Free Republic.
Nah, forget it- I'm sure you guys know better.
Yes it is, the moment Jim R set the 'no more vanity threads' rule, it meant we could only creat threads from material that was already posted from other places, E.I. copy-righted material.
So, we will continue to pay for the same tune that we bought in vinyl, then eight track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then _______, and _______ as the media become obsolete.
I think you might revist this thought.
I believe the sole purpose of FR is to redistribute copyrigthed material . . .
See post #82.
Personal copies are one thing, distributing copies is another. This case involves the distribution of copies.
I see this case as a hit against makers of devices used for criminal activities. Of course, it won't just stay within the relm of direct devices of criminal enterprise, but it will be abused.
I disagree with this ruling because it says that a person is open to civil liability if their device is used in a crime. No one forced the people to use the software to distribute files.
Intend - boy, that's a legally concrete word that won't be abused by sharp corporte lawyes /sarcasm.
Thomas and all the others were wrong here. This court is going more and more corporatist.
I use to download music without paying.. I no longer do it..
"Maybe, just maybe, these 9 judges, most of whom graduated top of their class from top law schools, know a little more about the law than posters on the Free Republic.
"
The fact someone went to law school means they know more about the law?
Hmmmm, we the people are required to obey the law but a study of those laws is required to understand them???
As usual, lawyers don't make any sense to a free country. Besides, mind exlpaining the property rights issue if they are sooooo educated, or is the purpose of law school to indoctrinate a person into communism?
Supreme court justices = very bad!!
Oh really, this will be back to the courts in less than a year because most newer P2P programs like bittorrent have put in their EULA that their progarms are not intended for trading copy-righted marterial without permission.
I'll take your word for it as Tancredo is my rep and he does listen as well.
It's not their 'law' knowledge that is the issue here -- it's their 'technology' knowledge.
The problem with being a 'legal' expert is you're trained to be able to argue *both* sides of any issue. So your only actual expertise lies in 'theory'.
Then they end up ruling on 'laws' that affect medicine, software design, engineering, etc -- without any actual expertise in those areas.
Check out what my Senator Coburn is up to....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430565/posts
Thank you, I'm really astonished by the last three SC Decisions. They re destroying our Republic. Read what that bastard of Stevens wrote against homemakers: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,"
Nuclear option is needed: FOR CLARENCE THOMAS, NOW!
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.