Posted on 06/28/2005 7:29:20 AM PDT by infocats
The Supreme Court may have dealt file-swapping companies a blow on Monday, but its decision is unlikely to put a damper on the illegal sharing of music and other media online anytime soon, industry experts say.
In its ruling, the nation's top court found that file-swapping companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks should be held liable for the widespread copyright infringement their technologies enable.
The decision casts uncertainty on the fate of Grokster and other file-swapping companies, but not on the viability of file-swapping itself, an activity that has only flourished under legal attacks, observers said. That's because the software that underlies peer-to-peer networks, used now by more than 8 million people simultaneously around the world, is designed to function and evolve without the aid of any particular commercial venture.
"It operates in a decentralized way," said Wendy Seltzer, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has represented Streamcast Networks. "It doesn't need to call into a home base; it doesn't need product updates from anyplace. What's out there continues to function and can continue to work on a completely distributed basis."
One need only look at Napster for an indication of how persistent file swapping has become and will continue to become, she said. The courts shut the peer-to-peer pioneer down in 2001, sidelining file swapping on the network because Napster computers were central to the system. But other software developers, many of them working independently, soon developed next-generation software that's now more sophisticated and more popular than ever.
As a result, illegal file swapping has only skyrocketed in recent years. In the United States, the average number of people swapping media files simultaneously on major peer-to-peer networks rose from nearly 3 million in 2003 to more than 6 million this year, according to BigChampagne, the Nielsen/NetRatings of file sharing. The vast majority are sharing unauthorized MP3 music files, said Eric Garland, head of BigChampagne.
Recent surveys indicate, however, that growth of unauthorized file swapping has slowed somewhat as online music stores, such as Apple Computer's iTunes and RealNetworks' Rhapsody, have taken off. The slowdown may also be tied to the fact that the Recording Industry Association of America has sued hundreds of file swappers over the past year or so.
Yet file swapping is bound to be a Pandora's box for some time to come, observers said. For one thing, people will always be tempted by free things. For another, iTunes and other authorized music stores lack some of the features and flexibility of the file-swapping networks, EFF's Seltzer said. For instance, Apple restricts the number of computers on which customers can store songs purchased through iTunes. It also limits the types of devices that can play them.
And while file swapping may prove to be a poor business venture, many peer-to-peer software developers and users aren't in it for money. They're young and smart, and they do it because they can.
"There is going to be an incentive to not associate visibly with the software, to offer support for it or advertise it," Seltzer said. "But there will always be people interested in tinkering and making it better. I don't think software development itself will stop."
What Monday's ruling may stop--or at least delay--are further innovations in peer-to-peer technology, said Adam Eisgrau, a lobbyist for P2P United, a trade association. "The reality is, if you've got the next best (peer to peer) mousetrap on your blackboard, you may well have used your eraser defensively today because those plans could be used against you in court."
In the meantime, the Grokster case will go to a lower court, which will decide its fate in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. Even that ruling won't to be the last word on the subject.
"The only thing we can say for certain is that there will be more confusion, more litigation, more and more copyright infringement online and a long road ahead," BigChampagne's Garland said.
The good news is that the liberals in Hollywood will continue to loose money...
What are they going to do with the alternate methods of file transfers? I'm not going to mention any here, but if they think that Grokster and StreamCast are the way files are being transferred, then they are still in the 20th century.
you mean like bittorrent?? limewire?? xnap???
what is good forum for discussing the latest file-swapping headlines?
I've always questioned the need for P2P progs. Why would I take the chance of getting busted and leaving trails when I can go directly to the newsgroups and get whatever I want? Music, movies, programs, etc. It's all there, and it's very easy to post and download anonymously. I can do this on usenet without thinking some RIAA goon will be handing me a subpoena.
I guess it's a matter of convenience. P2P has it all while usenet usually covers a specific topic. I used to go to usenet all of the time but never downloaded (actually now that I think of it, I did once but the program crashed my computer).
"I used to go to usenet all of the time but never downloaded (actually now that I think of it, I did once but the program crashed my computer)."
_____ __________ __________ _____
I think that's my fear with P2P. I know enough about usenet to avoid the problems. I'm also use to the old BBS way of doing things, so maybe that's why I find usenet easier to navigate. My biggest reason, whether founded or not, is I don't like the idea of opening my system up to others to browse. I know that can be controlled, but with usenet I don't have to worry about that.
I guess it's a matter of taste. P2P is newer technology that I'm not ready to grasp... yet (until my security concerns are met), plus the specter of lawsuits, versus tried and true methods of getting things. I just prefer to remain in the background requesting something if I need it, and posting occasionally just to keep me up to speed.
Great article, by the way.
That's about all the SCOTUS can do, is rule on obsolete technology. The speed of new development, and the slowness of the legal process will keep it so, permanently.
ping for later reference
Next thing you know, they will rule that the personal computer has infringed on the IBM Selectric typrewriter business, and must be stopped.
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.