![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jun. 27th, 2005
US Supreme Court rules against Grokster
Jun. 27th, 2005 11:54 pmCNN Money has its take on the issue here. Being CNN and thus part of Time Warner, the article tends to be somewhat skewed towards the viewpoint of the entertainment industry. I haven't found (or read) the actual ruling yet, and I probably would get lost in the legal jargon (unless noself would like to help), but essentially, what this ruling means is the following:
1) it will be hard (or impossible) for file-sharing or other P2P services to use the "Google defence" (that they are nothing more than an aggregation of links and that they are not responsible for any infringing uses that people may use their service for):
2) the Supreme Court does not want to pass judgement on whether the industry and its existing business model should be protected (whether by legislation, judicial decree or otherwise), instead letting the lower courts decide on this issue. Given that the original judgement was in favour of Grokster et al, this seems to suggest that the lower courts may not want to punish Grokster severely or may conclude that both positions are equally untenable.
It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds, and what kind of precedent it sets for future cases and how this will affect P2P software in general. As it is, there is some evidence that the statistics the RIAA (among others) use to measure the impact of P2P are over-stated, and that CD sales are declining for reasons other than illegal file-sharing.
Edit: Someone on slashdot posted a comment containing links to the three concurring opinions here.
Also, I find this comment interesting because it raises questions about proving intent:
1) it will be hard (or impossible) for file-sharing or other P2P services to use the "Google defence" (that they are nothing more than an aggregation of links and that they are not responsible for any infringing uses that people may use their service for):
"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," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
2) the Supreme Court does not want to pass judgement on whether the industry and its existing business model should be protected (whether by legislation, judicial decree or otherwise), instead letting the lower courts decide on this issue. Given that the original judgement was in favour of Grokster et al, this seems to suggest that the lower courts may not want to punish Grokster severely or may conclude that both positions are equally untenable.
It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds, and what kind of precedent it sets for future cases and how this will affect P2P software in general. As it is, there is some evidence that the statistics the RIAA (among others) use to measure the impact of P2P are over-stated, and that CD sales are declining for reasons other than illegal file-sharing.
Edit: Someone on slashdot posted a comment containing links to the three concurring opinions here.
Also, I find this comment interesting because it raises questions about proving intent:
How are you supposed to read the minds of the developers to figure out if they "intended" to promote illegal use? Almost every designer of P2P software probably knew perfectly well that the service would be used to trade illegal copies, but they also believed that distribution of legal content is also something that would be promoted. Would it have to be "primary intent" to promote illegal use or just "secondary intent" is enough?