Server Help :: View topic - SCOTUS: Grokster vs MGM

Server Help

Trash Talk - SCOTUS: Grokster vs MGM

CypherJF - Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:44 pm
Post subject: SCOTUS: Grokster vs MGM

Quote:

WASHINGTON--Supreme Court justices quizzed attorneys for file-swapping software companies and Hollywood studios Tuesday, in a case that will help determine the future of both the technology and entertainment industries.

In their questions, the justices were critical of the entertainment industry's proposal, which would hold companies "predominantly" supported by piracy liable for copyright infringement. However, they showed little sympathy for the file-swapping companies' business model.

"What you are suggesting is unlawful expropriation of property as a kind of start-up capital," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "From an economic standpoint and legal standpoint, that sounds wrong."

The case, which pits big record labels and movie studios against file-trading software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks, is the culmination of five years of legal battles against the peer-to-peer networks that entertainment companies believe are undermining the viability of copyrights.

Two federal courts have already ruled in favor of the file-swapping companies, saying that the software should be compared to a photocopying machine or a VCR--that it has enough legal uses to protect the file-swapping companies.

Record labels and movie studios dispute that idea, saying that Grokster and StreamCast, the parent of the Morpheus service, have deliberately built their business on the existence of widespread copyright infringement. They're asking the Supreme Court to rule that any company whose business is predominantly supported by piracy should be liable for that infringement.

Dueling protesters lined the sidewalks outside the court building before the hearing got underway. Black-T-shirt-wearing supporters of file sharing carried signs proclaiming "Save Betamax" and "RIAA keep your hands off my iPod."

Meanwhile, another group of 18 singer-songwriters from Nashville carried guitars and signs reading "Feed a musician. Download legally."

"We're here to give a face to people being hurt by illegal downloads," said Erin Enderlin, one of the songwriters. "When we don't get paid, we can't pay our rent."

The entertainment industry's argument has sent ripples of anxiety through Silicon Valley. Technology companies are leery of being held responsible for unforeseen or unauthorized uses of their software, and many are deeply concerned that the entertainment industry's proposal would force a potentially crippling legal review of virtually every product before its release.

Intel, the Consumer Electronics Association, and other technology and venture capital groups have appealed to the court to avoid placing new liability on technology manufacturers, rather than on individuals who are infringing copyrights.

As influential as the case is likely to be, few believe the issue will end with the Supreme Court, whose decision is expected in June. Many observers expect the losing side to take its case to Congress after the court rules.

Indeed, many legal observers say the high court is likely to leave the law largely as is and if it wants a different outcome, to ask Congress to change the copyright law.

"I think the court is going to affirm (the lower-court rulings)," said Ronald Katz, a copyright attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Philips. "This doesn't fit in with the way copyright law is written. But it's not surprising that the law doesn't fit with something that didn't exist at the time the law was made."

Quote:

They're asking the Supreme Court to rule that any company whose business is predominantly supported by piracy should be liable for that infringement.

I wonder how you legally "define" and "determine" such a thing.. heh.

source: http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+takes+hard+look+at+P2P/2100-1028_3-5644861.html?tag=nefd.lede

Purge - Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Post subject:

That's why we should all use this.

CypherJF - Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Post subject:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/03/court_conflicte.html

^-- just found this link, kinda cool.

Cyan~Fire - Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:55 pm
Post subject:

Or we can all just buy our stupid crap legally and actually appreciate the fact that people, no matter how inefficiently, are working to make these programs/songs/whatever.

CypherJF - Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:14 pm
Post subject:

But P2P itself isn't always trading illegal files... I still feel that I shouldn't be responcible for what users do w/ my programs...

D1st0rt - Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:22 pm
Post subject:

When we did model congress I wrote a bill to do the opposite. If gun companies aren't responsible for people dying when they get shot, p2p companies shouldn't be responsible when people misuse their products. Refer to the Supreme Court case involving Sony about the VHS stuff.

CypherJF - Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:12 pm
Post subject:

Thats what their doing right now. What most people are feeling courts will leave it be as is (like VCRs) -- but they'll ask Congress to change the law accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised being that the RIAA can donate $ to the congressmen = owning them.

Bummer for us.

Cyan~Fire - Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:40 pm
Post subject:

I was replying to Purge, not your post, Cyph.

I can see the similarities between the VHS case and this one, but it is slightly different. These P2P companies enourage, and even go as far as market the programs as ways to trade pirated material. I can definitely see them getting nailed for "aiding and abetting crime".

People will always do evil no matter what tools they're given, but there comes a point when it's not natural human tendencies encouraging the evil, but actually the tools themselves. Of course, I have no proof of that, it's just how I feel.

D1st0rt - Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:54 pm
Post subject:

You'd be surprised how little effect money has on individual members of congress, Cyph. All money really provides is access to the representative's agenda. It is arguably more effective if you instead write a bunch of fact-filled letters to them making sure they know you're a younger person.

CypherJF - Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:03 pm
Post subject:

I write my congressmen all the time and get stupid template letters. THe one I love is that I sent it back in November, I got a reply back in January, stating although he didnt agree w/ my views that Bush signed the thing into law etc etc back in december.. I've pretty much given up w/ writing my congress people; especially getting stupid templated letters back, waste.

Smong - Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:11 pm
Post subject: Re: SCOTUS: Grokster vs MGM

CypherJF wrote:

business is predominantly supported by piracy should be liable

So I only read that bit, and thought WOO!

Doesn't this mean there won't be any more copy protections? It takes about 5 min to load a DVD in linux it is cracking the encryption or something.

D1st0rt - Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:23 pm
Post subject:

Does your congressman let people walk into his office? You could try that, saying "I'm a constituent, foo!"