June 27, 2005
More Bad News From The Supreme Court
You have to admit they've been on something of a roll lately:
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.
The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.
"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," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
I'm not going to do much else other than link to something that Mark Cuban wrote over at Blog Maverick back in January:
With all the home movies we are creating and saving on our computers. All the digital pictures of our families and friends. All the personal music created at home. All the corporate data and presentations. All the books, software, newsletters, newspapers, discussion forums, blogs, websites and emails that are created and saved digitally. How big a percentage could music and movies be ? 1/10 of 1 percent? At most ?
Every single one of these items can benefit from the distribution efficiencies created by Peer to Peer networks. Every person and company in this country that wants to exchange digital data can benefit from peer to peer technologies. Just because the uses aren’t prevelant or obvious to some today, doesn’t mean they won’t be in 1, 2, 5 or more years from now.
In the MGM vs Grokster case, the fewer than 50 companies who control less than 1 pct of all digital information are trying to take control of innovation in the technology industry and pry it away from the rest of us.
Everything our imagination creates and touches that can be made digital is at risk if Grokster loses.
What innovations will be condemned by law before they have a chance to come to market because they could have an impact on Hollywood and the music industry? We have no idea and that is a very scary prospect
Now that very scary prospect has come to pass. And the American technology sector and the economic growth it provides are potentially at risk. Here's Cuban again, this time from last March, when he revealed that he was helping the Electronic Frontier Foundation to fund the Grokster defense:
It won’t be a good day when high school entrepreneurs have to get a fairness opinion from a technology oriented law firm to confirm that big music or movie studios wont sue you because they can come up with an angle that makes a judge believe the technology might impact the music business. It will be a sad day when American corporations start to hold their US digital innovations and inventions overseas to protect them from the RIAA, moving important jobs overseas with them.
That’s what is ahead of us if Grokster loses. That’s what happens if the RIAA is able to convince the Supreme Court of the USA that rather than the truth, which is, software doesn’t steal content, people steal content, they convince them that if it can impact the music business, it should be outlawed because somehow it will. It doesn’t matter that the RIAA has been wrong about innovations and the perceived threat to their industry, EVERY SINGLE TIME. It just matters that they can spend more then everyone else on lawyers. That’s not the way it should be.
But thanks to the Supreme Court, that's exactly the way it is now.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4862
OK. So since Cuban will never acknowledge it to be an issue because it detracts from his Tom Cruise-esque belief that every word he utters is brilliant, how would you compensate musicians, producers, writers, etc., for the work they do?
Or will music and all other forms of content become pastimes for those who are already wealthy? Those who need to support themselves need not apply?
Posted by:
at June 27, 2005 02:31 PM
Eric, one thing worth noting is that the ruling suggests companies can only be held liable based on intent and promotion. That is, if I develop some new peer-to-peer application and market it as the best way to find any music or movies, then I'm partially to blame for any copyright infringement caused by my program. If I make the P2P app available, say "Hey, you can use this for legitimate purposes," and clarify what those are, then the SCt ruling suggests I'm not to blame for subsequent illegal usage. Is that really an unfair ruling? I think it's reasonable.
It'd be nice if MGM (and, by extension, the MPAA and other media organizations) offered a better online distribution method. I don't deny what Cuban has said in that regard. However, that doesn't make it any less right to download files without fair compensation for those artists responsible for the work.
Posted by:
at June 27, 2005 03:14 PM
Well how are people supposed to know it's wrong to download music if the 10 commadnments can't be posted?
Posted by:
at June 27, 2005 04:02 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
12:53 PM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion/nav-commenters.gif)