Key US file-sharing ruling looms

BBC News Online, Monday, 27 June, 2005

A decision in a key legal case that pits movie studios against the makers of
file-sharing software is imminent.

The US Supreme Court is deciding if the software firms can be blamed when
their creations are used to break the law.

The case was brought by 28 media makers who claim the main use of file-sharing
networks is to help people illegally swap copyrighted material.

Despite the expected judgement, some experts fear the decision may be delayed
yet again.


Copyright battle

This legal battle began in October 2001 when movie and music makers first
filed a legal complaint against Streamcast Networks - creators of the
Grokster file-sharing system.

The complaint alleged that Streamcast was effectively profiting from the
rampant piracy on the network and sought substantial damages for this
copyright infringement.

The film makers and recording companies have pursued the case even though
successive US courts have sided with Streamcast and said that it should not
be held liable for what users do with its creation.

In making these decisions, the judges have referred to the legal precedent
created when Sony was sued over the Betamax video tape recorder in the late 1970s.

In that ruling the Supreme Court decided that Sony could not be prosecuted
because the video tape recorder had "substantial non-infringing uses".

In effect the judges said if most users of a technology were law-abiding there
was no reason to stop a device being used if some people broke the law with
it.

The movie studios and music makers have argued that this ruling does not apply
because file-sharing systems only have "substantial infringing uses". In
other words, most people use them to pirate copyrighted material.

At issue is whether Streamcast can be held liable for this illegal use.


Next steps

What is clear is that the Supreme Court ruling will do little to dent the
appetite of net users for file-sharing systems.

Research by the Pew Internet & American Life Project has found that 57% of
broadband users believe there is not much the US government can do to combat
file-sharing.

The survey also revealed that many people are swapping files on each others'
portable music players or via e-mail and instant messaging systems.

Technology experts fear that if the Supreme Court justices decide in favour of
the movie and music makers it could stifle innovation as all new technologies
will have to have potential infringing uses designed out.

They worry that this could lead to even more controls on what people can do
with the CDs, DVDs and music they have bought.


Legal complexity

Monday 27 June is the last day that the Supreme Court could issue a ruling as
it is the final day of this judicial session.

However, the court has the option of extending the session by one day or
simply leaving the case to the next judicial session that follows its
three-month summer recess.

Others expect a decision that will see the case returned to a lower court with
specific instructions from the Supreme Court justices on what remedy should
be applied.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has been fighting the case alongside
Streamcast, expects that the decision will have a knock-on effect on the US
Congress which could lead to re-drafts of copyright law.

Whatever happens the ruling is unlikely to stop movie and music makers
pursuing people who pirate and swap copyrighted material. So far US movie and
music industry associations have sued more than 12,000 people for piracy.

and the winner is... the suits :(
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

June 27, 2005 7:11 AM PDT
Supreme Court rules against file-swapping

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of studios and record labels Monday in the closely watched case on file-swapping. In a unanimous decision, justices said that peer to peer software companies should be liable for the copyright infringement of people using their products.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement," wrote Justice David Souter in the majority opinion.



Yep....Oh my, what a sad day. :(

From Slyck...

Quote:

---

With a solid victory in place for the MPAA and RIAA, the future of commercial P2P enterprise, at least in the United States, is in serious question. With StreamCast and Grokster both liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, the online community awaits the next round of lawsuits from the copyright industry juggernaut - a round of lawsuits that may annihilate StreamCast and Grokster.

---

It's not such bad news guys...

This ruling states that:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses,"

I don't believe that any of the companies are actually promoting its use to infringe copyright. Morpheus has a legal disclaimer built into their client for example saying that if you donwload files illegally they dont support you.
SCOTUS's finding of unlawful intent on the part of Grokster and Streamcast relies very heavily on their being marketed as replacements for Napster, which isn't exactly a method of determination with much application beyond this particular case.

A PDF of the actual details is available here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf

Besides all this is gonna do is drive people further into the darknet that is emerging...

BTW how can they shut down a decentralized network?
I know they can stop distributing the installation files but other than that...

BTW If Grokster and Co. go down it would be nice if a website such as thepiratebay, would buy their website so we don't have the eyesore of looking at the MPAA page again...
hehe

Sooooo let me get this straight.... the company that makes the p2p software is legally responsible for the way people use their software....

Let's take that one step further now, shall we?

The company that makes the hardware is legally responsible for the way people use their hardware.

Let the games begin.

I find it almost rather amusing to put this whole thing behind a view based on "the intention to encourage" since if they make it a blanket responsibility it would ensue mayhem across the board form mp3 players to cdrs to computers. I am still wondering how they intend to prove that intention amongst sotware writers that have even taken the time to place disclaimer within their software. I guess the only other thought is it is to based on some sort of scale of usage which still leaves the door open alot of bullshit to come if so...

You know...it's not hard to rip streaming music.

And theres plenty of online radio stations out there ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Sooooo let me get this straight.... the company that makes the p2p software is legally responsible for the way people use their software....

Let's take that one step further now, shall we?

The company that makes the hardware is legally responsible for the way people use their hardware.

Let the games begin.

---

The doctor that gives birth to a child is responsible for what they do. :)
:lol:

edit: not that the doctor gives birth, i mean help the mother give birth, i don't know the proper term for it. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Sooooo let me get this straight.... the company that makes the p2p software is legally responsible for the way people use their software....

Let's take that one step further now, shall we?

The company that makes the hardware is legally responsible for the way people use their hardware.

Let the games begin.

---

The doctor that gives birth to a child is responsible for what they do. :)
:lol:

edit: not that the doctor gives birth, i mean help the mother give birth, i don't know the proper term for it. :(

---

Delivers. ;)

I wonder if the gun lobby is worried?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

File-sharing suffers major defeat

BBC News Online, Monday, 27 June, 2005

The US Supreme Court has ruled that file-sharing companies are to blame for
what users do with their software.

The surprise ruling could start a legal assault on the creators of
file-sharing networks such as Grokster and Morpheus.

The case was brought by 28 movie and music makers who claimed that rampant
piracy was denting profits.

The Supreme Court judges were expected to rule in favour of the file-sharers
because of legal precedents set when video recorders first appeared.


Big win

The unanimous ruling is a victory for recording companies and film studios in
what is widely seen as one of the most important copyright cases in years.

Andrew Lack, chief executive of Sony BMG, said his company would pursue those
who failed to comply with the law.

"The court made it very clear that we can go after damages and that we can
chase them out," Mr Lack told BBC World's World Business Report.

"We will do that if necessary, but my hope is that we will find new bridges to
legitimise a lot of services that formerly were confused about what was right
and wrong, legal and illegal."

The legal case against Streamcast Networks - which makes the software behind
Grokster and Morpheus - began in October 2001 when 28 media companies filed
their legal complaint.

The complaint alleged that Streamcast was prospering on the back of the
unfettered piracy taking place on the file-sharing networks.

However, the attempts to win damages suffered a series of defeats as
successive courts sided with the file-sharing networks. The judges in those
lower courts cited a ruling made in 1984 over Sony's Betamax video recorder.

In that case, the Supreme Court said that the majority of people using a video
recorder for legal uses outweighed any illegal use of the technology.

But in this latest ruling the judges set aside the lower court decisions. It
means the makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if
they use it to break the law.

In the ruling Justice David Souter wrote: "The question is under what
circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and
unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties
using the product."

He added: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of
promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts
of infringement by third parties."

Reaction to the ruling was swift.

Dan Glickman, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said:
"Today's unanimous ruling is an historic victory for intellectual property in
the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and
lawful Internet businesses."

John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry said: "It quite simply destroys the argument that peer-to-peer
services bear no responsibility for illegal activities that take place on
their networks."

In other decisions on Monday, the Supreme Court:

* ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky
courtrooms but approved a monument to the same in Texas

* declined to hear appeals by two US journalists facing a contempt ruling
by a lower court over their investigation into an alleged White House
intelligence leak

* overturned a ruling that cable operators' high-speed internet lines must
be opened up to rivals.

The rulings came on the last day of the US Supreme Court's current judicial
session. It now breaks for a three-month recess.

One expected announcement that did not appear concerned the retirement of
80-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Justice Rehnquist is suffering from thyroid cancer, breathes through a
tracheal tube and struggled to talk during a speech closing the current court
term that thanked court workers.


Unseen effects

In its ruling the Supreme Court said there was "substantial evidence" that
Streamcast Networks had "induced" people to use its software to illegally
share copyrighted files.

It is unclear yet what action this ruling will prompt from movie studios and
music makers who brought the original case. It could mean claims for
substantial damages from Streamcast or moves to get the file-sharing networks
shut down.

Wayne Rosso, former Grokster president and now head of legal file-sharing
system Mashboxx, said: "If I'm running the RIAA [Recording Industry
Association of America], you're going to see lawsuits coming down like a
Texas hailstorm. Don't be surprised to see an unusually large number filed
immediately."

He said it would mean that users would have to get used to paying for music.

Michael McGuire, from analyst firm GartnerG2, said: "It's something of a
surprise. It will be interesting to see how record labels respond. It could
be argued that these peer-to-peer services were the most efficient way to
deliver rich media."

The decision could also have an impact on any technology firm developing
gadgets or devices that let people enjoy media on the move.

If strictly interpreted the ruling means that these hi-tech firms will have to
try to predict the ways people can use these devices to pirate copyrighted
media and install controls to stop this infringement.

The ruling could also prompt a re-drafting of copyright laws by the US
Congress.

So why not hold car manufacturers responsible for all the accidents that happen because of speeding? :huh:

They're making/and promoting their cars that can go from 0 to xxxMPH in x.sec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossco

The doctor that gives birth to a child is responsible for what they do. :)
:lol:

edit: not that the doctor gives birth, i mean help the mother give birth, i don't know the proper term for it. :(

---

Delivers. ;)

---

That's it, thanks. :)

I wonder if this gives them a way into newsgroups...

The interfaces are software and I can't imagine they are primarily used for legit purposes.

This could give them the leverage needed to get customer info in the future handing them everything they need.

Sure, currently they may not keep records, but they may be forced to just to keep themselves out of trouble.

TD

The fact is Usenet has far more legit uses than not...