Ruling Against File Sharing Companies
<div class="IPBDescription">Lawsuits for all?</div> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
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.
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 sets aside this precedent and the lower court decisions and 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."
Andrew Lack, chief executive of Sony BMG, said the verdict
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aside from the whole debate about file sharing, how exactly is a company supposed to predict how it's customers will use a product? Even bittorrent technology has numerous legitimate uses.
Anyways, either calm me down about this ruling or confirm my fears.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
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.
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 sets aside this precedent and the lower court decisions and 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."
Andrew Lack, chief executive of Sony BMG, said the verdict
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aside from the whole debate about file sharing, how exactly is a company supposed to predict how it's customers will use a product? Even bittorrent technology has numerous legitimate uses.
Anyways, either calm me down about this ruling or confirm my fears.
Comments
Sorry if that sounded really stupid I just read that as the people who create the file sharing programs will mostly be held responsible...
If you say, "here is a piece of software for downloading things," it's fine. If you say "Here is a piece of software for downloading copyrighted music," you can be sued. Grokster was doing the latter.
The BBC article is wildly inaccurate to the actual text of the decision from what I've read on it.
*Edit*
Er... Moultano cleared it up a bit in the above post. It makes sense.
Why is that not surprising?
Apart from being charged with the murder, that's pretty much the case for gun control, mad.
Sorry if that sounded really stupid I just read that as the people who create the file sharing programs will mostly be held responsible... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not the 13 of them wanted in Italy right now, that's for sure.
We can't blame them for making crap movies/songs in the first place? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This is going to go on for a long time until one of the sides loses. Who will win, is up for debate.
If you say, "here is a piece of software for downloading things," it's fine. If you say "Here is a piece of software for downloading copyrighted music," you can be sued. Grokster was doing the latter.
The BBC article is wildly inaccurate to the actual text of the decision from what I've read on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
This isn't anything new at all. This came up back in the late 70's (early 80's) when VHS and Betamax were the buzzwords of the day. The TV/movie companies sued sony and etc. because they claimed it allowed people to make illegal copies (which it certainly did). However the judge ruled that since it has a legitimate use *AND* since it was not being marketted as a device to break the law, it was okay. I'm sure a similar story took place over double deck cassette tape players.