http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/ -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/index.htm -- NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court handed the entertainment industry a crucial victory Monday in their titanic battle to curb Internet piracy. In MGM v. Grokster, the high court overturned a ruling that barred Hollywood and the music industry from suing Internet services used by consumers to swap songs and movies for free. The decision was a major win for the entertainment industry and a big blow to technology companies. The recording industry and Hollywood movie studios are looking for as much legal firepower as they can get to help prevent Internet users from sharing songs, movies, videos and other copyrighted material without paying. Internet piracy, entertainment industry executives have claimed, threatens their existence. Technology leaders have been equally strident, claiming that holding software and hardware companies accountable for Internet piracy committed by individual users will chill innovation. Top of page
As the front page of slashdot.org says, "There's not an entirely accurate statement - what The Supremes said is 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.' The promotion is the key part of that statement."
The ramifications of this are scary: Is it both the networks and the software that are held liable? Limewire and Bearshare use the same, public network. MIAA and MPAA will attack both. Who will win/lose? Can the ruling be dodged if the software companies simply change their promotion strategy to strongly emphasie "legal" file sharing? Could they simply put an intro splash page that says, "I agree that I realize that sharing copyrighted software is illegal and not promoted by Grokster in any way" ? Does the scope of this law extend to streaming broadcasts such as television signals? How far does it go? Does the ruling cover hardware as well as software?
June 27 (AP) — The Supreme Court ended its term Monday with no retirement announcements from any justices. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/062705ap_nw_rehnquist.html
I think at some point we should acknowledge that if the software is *primarily* used for illegal file sharing, then the manufacturer and distributor should bear some responsibility for that file-sharing. Even if there may be some legit uses for the software. I'm free to sell a sledgehammer that could, conceivably, be used to break into a house...but I'm not free to sell lock breaking tools to the general public, even if I ask the purchaser to sign an agreement that he won't use them illegally, or if I can drum up a few circumstances where they would be used legally.
Us supreme court have no jursdiction over foreign countries. Does anyone believe this would stop the p to p software? I have something to sell to those that believe it.
So will they come for bittorrents and does anyone think this will put an end to RM's bittorrents of Rocket games?
not exactly...here's more indepth analysis: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/new_challenge_t.html#more -- Monday, June 27, 2005 New challenge to file-sharing designers Posted by Lyle Denniston at 01:12 PM The Supreme Court’s unanimous (but in some ways divided) ruling on the use of copyright laws to try to stop the massive sharing over the Internet of music and movie files posts a significant legal warning to software designers, but does not turn them into complete copyright outlaws. Given some ingenuity, both in software design and in marketing tactics, it is conceivable that digital file-sharing technology – available free -- may yet be quite legal. Justice David H. Souter’s opinion for the Court, in fact, provides a reliable guide to avoiding copyright liability for such software. It apparently was written in that way to try to avoid the risk of stifling ingenuity in software design. The technology alone, Souter made clear, does not by itself run afoul of the copyright laws. The chief characteristic of download-and-share software is that it enables the use of the Internet to reach files, some of which may be copyrighted works. If that were all that a software company did, according to the opinion, legal fault would not yet exist – especially, if it crafted the design in such a way as to filter out copyrighted material. In addition, the mere fact that the developer knows someone may or even will use the software to purloin copyrighted files, the Court made clear, is not sufficient, either. What counts most of all, it is apparent, is that a software developer promote the use of the product explicitly to stimulate computer users to use the product solely or at least primarily as a copyright-infringing mechanism. The Court, while not finally deciding that there was contributory infringement by the software developers in this case, found what it called “unmistakable” proof that an “unlawful objective” did exist. Souter’s opinion cites three specific pieces of telling evidence. First, he noted that Grokster and StreamCast set out, in the beginning, to pick up where Napster had left off, satisfying a demand for those who explicitly wanted to download copyrighted works. Second, he said, there was no attempt to design any filtering tools to reduce the amount of infringement by end-users. And third, he found, the two companies made money by selling advertising space, then directing those ads to the screens of computers using their software. “The more their software is used, the more ads are sent out and the greater the advertising revenue,” according to the opinion. While cautiously suggesting that this evidence “would not justify an inference of unlawful intent,” Souter said its import “is clear” in the record of this case. The opinion went on to stress that, beyond an unlawful intent on the part of the developer, copyright liability exists only if there also is factual proof that the software is used in the end to pirate copyrighted files. That exists in this case, Souter noted, on “a gigantic scale.” Thus, the Court overturned summary judgment in favor of the software developers, and sent the case back for a trial. One notable legal point about the decision is that the Court’s most significant prior ruling on copyright and new technology remains intact, despite the urging of the copyright owners and, indeed, despite the urging of three members of the Court to reduce its protection for new technology that might be used for infringement. That precedent, of course, is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, in 1984. Souter’s opinion says explicitly that the Court would leave any review of Sony’s scope for another day. This means that new technology will not be illegal just because it is capable of being used for infringement. What makes the Internet file-sharing technology potentially illegal here, according to Souter, is evidence going beyond its basic characteristics or awareness of how it may be used, and revealing “statements or actions directed to promoting infringement.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said in a separate opinion that the Court should reinterpret the Sony decision more strictly, to insist on firmer evidence that software can and will be used for a significant amount of legal use. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens, answer that critique with a strong defense of Sony, as is. Thus, the two positions neutralize each other, and Sony stands, unrevised.
"I hate this ruling btw...it is like saying it is alright to watch erotica as long as isn't marketed as something that might arouse you. It is a judicial cop-out..." LOL found this in the comments Matt Yglesias' blog http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/27/115956/954
I don't see why this is even controversial. It's illegal to knowingly and intentionally aid in the commission of a crime, and that what these software companies are doing. They are looking to get rich by creating products that encourage and enable fraud, and they even market the products that way. Our laws shouldn't be designed to reward helping people commit fraud, and I hope the RIAA sues the hell out of all these guys.
As somebody, I think it was Professor Lessig, once said, it's kind of ridiculous to have these kinds of issues decided by a bunch of people who rarely or have never even used the internet.
