The Supreme Court: FileSharing Co's Can Be Liable

[DudeAsInCool]

A Supreme Court Showdown for File Sharing

By SAUL HANSELL and JEFF LEEDS

Published: March 28, 2005

...Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case in which the recording and film industries seek to hold makers of file-sharing software liable for the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted material online. The case is against other file-sharing services, Grokster and Morpheus, which won in lower courts, but Mr. Gorton said that if those rulings were overturned, it could make LimeWire vulnerable.

..."I think this court decision is a game changer. It will dramatically affect behavior, and behavior will dramatically affect how music is sold and distributed and consumed," said Andrew Lack, chairman of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which releases music by stars like Usher and Bruce Springsteen. "It will clarify the law and establish right from wrong."

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/28/technology/28grokster.html

[Malicious Intent]

Slyck has made the main arguments easy reading:

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=723

[Redneck4sure]

Slyck has made the main arguments easy reading:

You mean dumbed it down so the liberals can understand it.

[KiwiCoromandel]

quite a good article..... :)

[DudeAsInCool]

Groups predict more songs over Internet

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Ted Bridis

March 28, 2005  |  Washington -- The music and film industries will continue to offer digital copies of songs and movies online for a price even if they lose a landmark Supreme Court case focusing on consumers who steal copyrighted material over the Internet, those industries' chief lobbyists said Monday.

"Consumers want a legal, hassle-free, reasonable-cost way to get their products online," said Dan Glickman, head of the Motion Picture Association of America. "There's no question you'll see a lot more opportunity for people in their homes to enjoy music and movies and other creative material."

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2005/03/28/music/index.html

[Malicious Intent]

MGM will lose. I have absolutely no doubt of it.

I've read all the briefs, listened to all press releases, loads of opinions and analysis. My eyes have gone all square (in more than one meaning of the word).

The way I see it, the industry went head long into trying to get Grokster shut down without any thought. After they lost, headlines flew around saying the software is legal. This is the last thing they wanted, as it suggested that the way the software was used is also legal.

Rather than fight a stupid press and public, they decided to fight for the headline they want. They lost again.

Now we are up to the supreme court, there is a lot of focus on the arguments and none on how we got here. There is little discussion on exactly what MGM is trying to achieve. File sharing will continue development in every other country and Americans will have full access. They are simply spending millions to finally get that headline. They cant afford to back down. Their own fault - they started it.

We all know the arguments for file sharing. What we know less about is why MGM think they are right.

TBH, they do have a reasonable point. Applying Betamax is not cut and dry.

"Capable of significant non-infringing uses" is very broad. It is not saying that it is currently being used for non-infringing activities, just that it is capable of it. "Significant" may not be in reference to the percentage of activity that is non-infringing, just how useful.

Seems like we should rule in favour of Grokster? Maybe not.

Firstly, it is likely that significant does mean percentage of those not infringing copyrights. Betamax was decided on the basis that most used Betamax for fair use time shifting. This meant the percentage of betamax users not infringing is definately significant.

So anyones guess what "significant" meant.

"Capable" should keep Grokster in the clear though. The current level infringement is not the point. It is what the networks ar capable of. Imagine if large businesses fully embraced the technology.

However, MGM will be arguing that the mass scale piracy occuring on p2p networks could not have been envisioned by the Betamax judges. Billions of perfect copies, compared to VHS - they can not be compared. Betamax should therefore not be applied. It is time for a new benchmark ruling which better reflects the current situation.

That brings us on to the next question - who should set a new rule? It is very important, so perhaps Congress should instead of The Supreme Court.

So the arguments go on. I still dont believe for a second MGM have a chance of winning the case, I just thought others would like to know the other side of the argument.

[Ken]

You mean dumbed it down so the liberals can understand it.

Have you ever commented in any thread without using the term "liberal" while associating it with something undesirable?

I can understand the joking, but sometimes it just seems too off topic and unnecessary.

This is about File Sharing.

Now, as to the topic at hand, this would make Bram Cohen (creator of BitTorrent) liable.

I respect him the most in the P2P community, and it would be a shame to see something happen to him.

Edited March 29, 2005 by Ken

[DudeAsInCool]

Here's another article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._file_sharing_1

[method77]

a good read

http://p2pnet.net/story/4369

[DudeAsInCool]

The debate begins...

Supreme Court Weighs in on File-Sharing

Mar 29, 12:21 PM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court expressed concerns Tuesday over allowing entertainment companies to sue makers of software that allows Internet users to illegally download music and movies, questioning whether the threat of such legal action might stifle Web innovation.

During a lively argument, justices wondered aloud whether such lawsuits might have discouraged past inventions like copy machines, videocassette recorders and iPod portable music players - all of which can be used to make illegal duplications of copyrighted documents, movies and songs.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the same software that can be used to steal copyrighted materials offered at least conceptually "some really excellent uses" that are legal.

Justice Antonin Scalia maintained that a ruling for entertainment companies could mean that if "I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."

While seeming leery of allowing lawsuits, the court also appeared deeply troubled by efforts of the companies that manufacture so-called file-sharing software to encourage Internet piracy and profit from it.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pressed a software lawyer on the question of whether profits from trafficking in stolen property can rightfully be used to help finance a young technology business. "That seems wrong to me," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050329/D894OTE80.html

[KiwiCoromandel]

there seems to be some positive thinking going on there by the judiciary.......a couple of statements that sound hopeful..... :)

[KiwiCoromandel]

Online music case rests on VCR technology

9 March 2005

WASHINGTON: When internet file-sharing services and the entertainment industry square off in the US Supreme Court today, the outcome will likely rest on a nearly obsolete technology - the videocassette recorder.

Backers of "peer to peer" networks like Grokster will argue that the software makers deserve the same protections as VCR manufacturers, because both can be used for good or ill.

Record labels and movie studios will argue that Grokster should be held responsible when its millions of users illegally copy movies and music directly from each others' computers.

Both sides will agree on one thing - the court could harm their ability to produce innovative new products if it doesn't rule in their favour.

"If nothing is changed and these services continue to operate, it will have an impact on the creative process. For the movie industry, it will mean less risk will be taken in terms of the creation of new material," said Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.

"The way new technology is created and funded it's a high-risk affair. It's not going to get funded if there's a sword of litigation hanging over it," said Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, which supports Grokster.

Read more......

http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3230950a11275,00.html

IM.0853_zl

[DudeAsInCool]

The latter part of the following article puts the whole thing much more up in the air than previously reported; its unclear which way the Supreme Court is going to go --- Read on:

http://www.slate.com/id/2115919/

[DudeAsInCool]

Music rules

A Supreme Court ruling against peer-to-peer network Grokster would do more than punish music pirates. It would affect the future of the Internet.

By Andrew Leonard

Read the full opinion at Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/03/...ster/index.html

[DudeAsInCool]

Lively Debate as Justices Address File Sharing

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: March 30, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 29 - The much-heralded Supreme Court showdown in the Grokster case between old-fashioned entertainment and newfangled technology found the justices surprisingly responsive on Tuesday to warnings from Grokster, the software maker that allows Internet users to share computer files on peer-to-peer networks, that a broad definition of copyright infringement could curtail innovation.

Read all about it here:

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/30/technology/3...artner=homepage

[DudeAsInCool]

In 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act -- forbidding the import, manufacture or distribution of all digital recording "devices" capable of making multiple identical copies. These days, every home computer is potentially such a device.

[Malicious Intent]

a good read

http://p2pnet.net/story/4369

I can sort of see where he is coming from. However, it is not a tweak. The aim is to clarify the scope of Betamax, not to change it.

[KiwiCoromandel]

Court Ruling May Not Hinder Music Theft

03/30/05 7:54 AM PT

Richard Taranto, the lawyer for software-maker Grokster, told the Supreme Court on yesterday that modern file-sharing tools like Grokster's are "autonomous communications products," underscoring the evolution of such software since the entertainment industry's landmark victory in July 2001 shutting down the Napster online service.

Even if entertainment companies win their Supreme Court battle for new authority to protect movies and music on the Internet, lawyers say it won't be easy to shut down the decentralized computer links used to trade songs and films.

Read more..........

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/41868.html

[method77]

Photos

[KiwiCoromandel]

nice one...good article too.... :)

[DudeAsInCool]

Here's an interesting tidbit from a ZNet article on the case:

"Hwever, there’s been another interesting development in the case that no one was expecting. Timothy K. Armstrong was at the MGM v. Grokster hearing and caught MGM making a surprise concession in response to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia: (Emphasis added)

At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement.

MGM s answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM s side of the case who don t think that example is one bit legal. But they ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they ll be barred from challenging ripping in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In any event, though, MGM s iPod example did exactly what their proposed standard expressly doesn t do: it evaluated the legality of the invention based on the knowledge available to the inventor at the time, not from a post hoc perspective that asks how the invention is subsequently marketed or what business models later grow up around it."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?p=219

[DudeAsInCool]

The decision is expected Monday. Any predictions?

[Malicious Intent]

P2P Has moved on since this all began. I'm confident of a Grokster victory.

[DudeAsInCool]

P2P Has moved on since this all began. I'm confident of a Grokster victory.

Me2. How would you summarize the advancements in P2P since the suit was filed?

[Malicious Intent]

Tough question. It perhaps isn't so much about change in the technology, but more in how it is being used.

I wrote a big spew, but to summarise:

There are many uses for P2P. Businesses can make obvious savings from P2P. Home users will be seeing the benefits on the same scale soon too.

When all this kicked off, it was just theory, but now it is in practice and increasingly so. Even the RIAA is using it with PeerImpact et. al.

It is therefore impossible to say what is legit and what is not.

P2P has become too fundamental to the Internet to ban. Don't get me wrong, I can't see the difference between searching a LAN using windows and searching a WAN with Ares, so this lawsuit never made sense. Now though, I think there is plenty for the courts to see that too.