Another high court ruling hits the streets

[Gan]

Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle

The U.S. Supreme Court rules against file-sharing service Grokster in a closely watched piracy case.
June 27, 2005: 5:46 PM EDT
By Krysten Crawford, CNN/Money staff writer


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that software companies can be held liable for copyright infringement when individuals use their technology to download songs and movies illegally.

The unanimous decision handed the music and movie industries a crucial victory in their ongoing battle to curb Internet piracy -- a campaign centered on lobbying for new laws, filing thousands of lawsuits against Internet users, and winning a ruling from the nation's highest court.

Their victory Monday on the third piece of that strategy dealt a big blow to technology companies, which claim that holding them accountable for the illegal downloading of songs, movies, video games and other proprietary products would stifle their ability to develop new products.

In MGM v. Grokster, the high court overturned a ruling that had barred Hollywood and the music industry from suing Internet services used by consumers to swap songs and movies for free...

In Grokster, the court did not address the question of whether the technology at issue in the case -- known as file-sharing, or "peer-to-peer" -- is illegal. Rather, the justices focused on the actions of the peer-to-peer software companies named in the case, Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the maker of file-sharing software known as Morpheus, and whether they encouraged the illegal use of their technology.

In a strongly-worded opinion written by Justice David Souter, the court called Grokster and StreamCast's unlawful intent "unmistakable."

"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 by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/index.htm

__________________________________


What are your thoughts on copyright infringement of media and software?

Seems they are targeting not the developers of the peer to peer software but the distributors and the recipients of the product of said software.

I know the overall debate over open source coding and copyright development has been the motivation for such tools as Linux and FireFox, which I'm seeing more and more use of these days.

Do you think opensource development and free exchange of any/all computer medium is where the future is? Or is it the other way around? Which concept will take us to the next level?

[Fengus]

"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 by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.

I would agree distribution with clear expression of infringement is probably a good thing to curb, if needed. But the bolded part is pure horsehit, but with that in mind lets get McDonalds and countless other companies that distribute a product with an affirmative message that when followed leads one astray and usually sick or dead.

[Apotheosis]

Well, honestly, all they have to do is prove that the companies INTENDED to promote piracy, that's a difficult case to build in some situations. Seriously, I would love to sit in on the case where they discuss that.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Fengus

"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 by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.

I would agree distribution with clear expression of infringement is probably a good thing to curb, if needed. But the bolded part is pure horsehit, but with that in mind lets get McDonalds and countless other companies that distribute a product with an affirmative message that when followed leads one astray and usually sick or dead.

Expanding on your thoughts a bit further.
Apply the Majority Opinion to Gun Control:

[Replaced copyright with life:]

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

Imagine applying that to distributors of firearms who market with the slant of protection and self defense rather than for sporting purposes. Taken to extremes this would mean those wrongfully killed by a firearm could see their estates or the [state] sue the firearm distributor for damages in a civil action. In addition to criminal and civil actions taken against the aggressor in this example.

The precedence this sets could possibly cross boundries and apply to other circumstances, and this is definately thought provoking. :!: