Posted on 06/27/2005 12:05:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Grokster and StreamCast Networks can be held liable for copyright infringements committed by users of their peer-to-peer file-sharing software, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday. The decision in the case Grokster v. MGM is a major win for the motion picture and recording industries, which took the case to the nation's highest court after losing in lower courts over the past two years or so.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs--Motion Picture Association of America, the National Music Publisher's Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America--asked the court to recognize that the Grokster and StreamCast's Morpheus P-to-P (peer-to-peer) software packages were created primarily to encourage users to illegally trade copyright songs and movies. They argued that while users are responsible for copyright violations, P-to-P vendors share a secondary liability.
The issue before the Supreme Court in the case focused on a relatively narrow question: whether movie and music companies should be able to sue the P-to-P distributors for the copyright violations of their users.
The Supreme Court ruling thus gives movie and music companies the ability to sue P-to-P distributors and sends the case back to a lower court.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
Whoops, screwed up the title. Sorry, admins can you change to "Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster"?
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121603,00.asp! http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121603,00.asp! http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121603,00.asp!...
Dumb decision.
It's dangerous in that it might spur the *AA to go on a lawsuit binge, but the precedent isn't that far-reaching. The makers of such writers did not, in the beginning, set out purposefully to contribute to infringement, and say so publicly. Grokster did. the Sony decision still stands.
Don't forget The Illuminati......
What's the illuminati?
So why can I go into a Blockbuster and buy a blank DVD with my rental of a movie on DVD? What do they think I'm going to do with that blank DVD? Why isn't the movie industry all over this practice?? The Supremes are so off base this week!
What that one time rental or purchase of said DVD or CD does not authorize you to do, is to "share" it through a peer to peer with an unlimited number of your "closest friends".
It is copyrighted material. The owner of the copyright(the creators of the property you're "sharing")doesn't get paid beyond that initial purchase.
The next time you want to download something for free, do this for me. Go into You're nearest Walmart, Kmart,or Tower Records or Blockbuster pick up a CD or DVD and walk out of the store without paying for it and announce as loudly as you can as You're walking out of the store that you're taking this movie or CD without paying for it...and there's not a damn anybody can do about it, because there's nothing wrong with it. It's there. They're sharing it with you. It was made easily available to you. They built that big display just for you . They must want you to have it . See how far you get... Explain to the nice police the finer points of "sharing" as he or she is reading you your rights. It's the same thing.
Intent to take something that doesn't belong to expressly to YOU ,without paying for it, is STEALING. You can make copies of bought CD's or rented movies for private noncommercial use. It's the rebroadcast and redistribution of said CD's and Movies without paying a fee(which the creators of the music or movie earn their living from)that peer to peer until now has been so "freely " providing that infringes the copyright that I and my fellow professional songwriters are guaranteed by the Constitution.
I agree that copyright infringement is stealing and improper, but I don't agree with holding producers responsible. They are not the ones that perpetrate the infringement, even if their technology enables it.
Should a gun manufacturer be tried for murder when someone gets shot?
The Government is broken.
I don't know them from Adam but if that's what they did, it sounds like really tempting fate on their part. A Darwin bid. No way that this could escape an outrage sufficient to bring retribution in one way or another. If SCOTUS hadn't come to this conclusion, we would have seen Congress asking RIAA "how high" to jump forthwith.
I guess the equivalent in the gun business would be someone manufacturing a "Gangsta 9," advertising how useful it would be in drive-by shootings, gangland executions and robberies, as well as for popping a random old lady as an initiation.
I think we can both see that company getting nailed pretty quickly.
Peer to peer companies are SET UP for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of the willful infringement of the copyright. That's why they are there. To circumvent the system of paying for the 1.5-2 billion songs per month that are being downloaded.
Gun manufacturers do not build and sell guns for the specific purpose of murdering someone.
Car manufacturers do not build cars that go over 120 miles an hour intending for you to do so on a busy street.
Dunkin Donuts do not make donuts intending for you to eat them until you weigh 350-400 lbs.
Williful intent of the company is the deciding factor on what is going on here.
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.