In the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, the Supreme Court have declared that file-sharing services such as Grokster can in fact be held liable for copyright infringement that occurs via the use of their technology. "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," wrote Justice David H. Souter. This will send the case back to a lower court, who previously ruled that Grokster and other services couldn't be sued by MGM in the first place. We'll have more punditry on this later, as soon as we're done hiding the evidence that we've totally Limewired, like, everything with a 7 or higher on Pitchfork...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-27-2005 @ 1:25PM
Joe Swanberg said...
Hell, we might as well sue computer makers since people have to use a computer in order to use Grokster or any other file sharing software. Or better yet, why not just get to the root of the problem and sue people for making movies that get illegally downloaded. If they stopped making movies, nobody could steal them.
I hate all this crap.
Reply
6-27-2005 @ 4:00PM
Ash said...
We are all screwed...wait, the FBI is here to collect my iPod. Dammmn yooouu Rehnquist.
Reply
6-27-2005 @ 6:49PM
Sean McCarthy said...
I haven't read the opinion yet, although...
The Court has probably made this decision in order to force the hand of a Congress which would very much prefer not to decide.
People unfamiliar with the US Constitution, and especially with the "Separation of Powers" doctrine, will find this a little tough to grasp.
The bottom line is, that the Court might very well have WANTED to rule in Grokster's favor, and yet found itself lacking the constitutional authority to do so.
Reply
6-27-2005 @ 6:50PM
zander106 said...
Let's not get too hasty now everyone. The problem with Grokster as the Supreme Court saw it is that they *induced* copyright infringement through their marketing and promotion of their product. Basically, in an effort to increase downloads and increase ad revenue they would receive, Grokster heavily promoted the seamier aspects of their file sharing software (i.e. "Download Top 40 Songs Here For Free!" kind of stuff), and the court saw that as essentially condoning and encouraging their customers to download copyright-protected content.
However the Court did not rule that any technology that allows this to happen is illegal; they upheld at least some of the idea behind the Sony/Betamax decision by stating that file-sharing technologies do serve non-illegal uses as well and thus can not be outright declared illegal. Grokster just went too far in promoting the illegal uses of their product.
It seems to me that this is definitely not an outright victory for the movie industry. This ruling will probably keep BitTorrent and Limewire in the clear for a while, since their developers are *not* stupid enough to promote their software as a way to get copyrighted stuff without paying. The war between **AA and the file-sharing community will go on, but the genie is out of the bottle now, and I don't see it ever going away.
Reply
6-27-2005 @ 7:05PM
Ash said...
If the Supreme Court wanted to force congress to do something then they could have set a precedent in the case to judge the constitutionality of it themselves. This is the beginning of it. Content companies are now going to go after people much more than in the past. They see an opening, a sympathy in the court for their purpose. They are going to test every possible boundry they can. The court sent a very clear message to the MPAA and the RIAA with a unanimous vote. There was no dissenting remark, that is important. It shows very simply how they are going to lean on these things.
Reply
6-27-2005 @ 9:41PM
Sean McCarthy said...
You missed my point a little, Ash.
The Court did NOT say "everything is just fine with our existing copyright laws. They absolutely don't need to be updated at all."
The Court did say: "If our copyright laws are to be significantly changed, then Congress must be the one to do the changing."
Do you see the difference?
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 1:50AM
Li, Supergenius said...
Next step: RIAA sues the internet. Internet officially "pwned" and unavailable for comment.
The stupid thing is, they're never going to wipe out filesharing. There's still webpages, blogs, DC++, IRC, hell, even AIM. There's just no way they can get everyone who breaks the law.
Will this lawsuit mean less lawsuits against individual perpetrators?
Reply
6-28-2005 @ 6:04AM
Ash said...
First to Supergenius, No, They will sue us all soon. Studios like so sue people their lawyers' suits have much better pin stripes than our's will.
Now, Andrew McCarthy, loved you in Mannequin. Isn't it, at the same time, the job of the Supreme Court to send a clear message to congress that they need to step in here. Maybe at least one dissenting vote. They were more undecided about letting crazies put tax dollar spent money into statues of the ten commandments in or outside of a courthouse than this thing. I just don't see things going well at all when you look at the direction they are ruling things in, the members, where they are going (retirement), and the fact that republicans (hollywood friendly in this one ironic case) control the presidency, the senate, the house, and soon entirely the judicial. Your checks and balances have just bounced.
Reply