File Sharing Services

[awlchu]

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

[somebodeez]

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that companies that sell file-sharing software can be held liable for copyright infringement.

So does that mean the developers of free file sharing software can't be held liable?

[awlchu]

Think about this for a moment:

They are holding the vehicle of "transportation" liable for illegal use versus the end user for illegally sharing copy-righted mat'l.

It's like saying UPS/Fed-Ex/snail Mail is liable for handling illegal copied mat'l with it's system.

I wonder if the emphasis is proving the file-sharer willingly knew the contents were illegal or will the emphasis be placed on the Hollywood proving that the file-sharer knew if was transporting illegal goods.

Our legal system needs to get their heads out of their a__ and get caught up to the 21st century.

Go after the end-user - not the mechanism.

[somebodeez]

You can read the opinion of the court here (pdf)
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/...pdf/04-480.pdf

[thecoalman]

Go after the end-user - not the mechanism.

Same thing the gun lobby has been saying...and they are right.

[BJ_M]

you could extend this to windows or a net card or any number of things .

[bugster]

It may not be quite as bad as it seems:-

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 using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.

So, as long as you don't advertise or promote the fact that your software (or other device) has 'infringing' uses, you are OK. Or am I missing something here.

[/quote]

[ROF]

The primary use of my email client is to swap songs. Is my ISP now liable? Is Emailing now illegal? I think they've overstepped their bounds on this one or maybe perhaps the internet will need to be redone in order to prevent the free exchange of information. You never know when someone may want to turn on the net radio and broadcast a song to their friends.

[BJ_M]

emailing may now be not legal in Utah and Michigan with the new laws that just went into effect there -

[thecoalman]

So, as long as you don't advertise or promote the fact that your software (or other device) has 'infringing' uses, you are OK. Or am I missing something here.

Tell that to Sima....

[ROF]

My ISP advertises their broadband with the slogan of downloading music. They do not specify legal music, just downloading music faster. Can my ISP now be shutdown since the advertise with an illegal intent?

[bazooka]

The betamax decision has been overturned. ?

where does it say that ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for “substantial” legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don’t have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

But in Monday’s ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

How does that not fly in the face of the Betamax decision?

[BJ_M]

it did not overturn it (the betamax thing) , read it again carefully..

also - notice that the buck was passed anyway as it goes back to a lower court - the same one that sided w/ grokster in the first place ..

[waheed]

type in "download (name of illegal file here)" in Google, will give you list of results where the illegal file can be downloaded from.

Would that mean Google can be sued?

Its principles is similar to file sharing. file sharing provide s a list of results for your searches, and so does google in a way.

[ROF]

Yes. Google is primarily used by those looking for copyrighted information to download.

It should be shut down. My ISP should be shut down too and I shouldn't be able to buy anymore CD or DVD Burners or software. All of these advertise the downloading, ripping, and/or transfer of music files from one media to another.

[ROF]

Now that I think about it, I would guess all PC computer technology is now illegal. Look at the number of people sharing illegal files, now compare that with sales of home computers.

I'd say the home computer has a substantial liabaility for infringement and should now be taken off the market and made illegal to own or use.

[burnman99]

Now that I think about it, I would guess all PC computer technology is now illegal. Look at the number of people sharing illegal files, now compare that with sales of home computers.

I'd say the home computer has a substantial liabaility for infringement and should now be taken off the market and made illegal to own or use.

Yup, they'll have to come out with a new slogan too.

The Internet: A Pirate's Domain, not just for TGPorn anymore!

Later!

Roger

[ROF]

Firewire Technologies main promotion is the transfer of data at high speeds. More than 50% of that data being transferred is copyrighted info, so Firewire should immediately be removed from the marketplace.

[BJ_M]

apple used to promote being able to download and burn cds of yoru fav. music also ...

plus a 40gig harddrive in a ipod - does that mean that someone BUYS 10,000 legal mp3's?

[That Bastid]

My ISP (SBC) also sells its DSL with a slogan about how fast you'll download music. I was shocked that they would be so brazen. It's well-known that piracy is driving their growth and that the Baby Bells and cable are hiding behind the Groksters of the world, but I was kind of stunned that SBC would be so stupid as to promote this fact in their advertising.

Yes, according to my reading of the decision, it's quite an error for SBC to have run that campaign!

By the way, the decision is well-reasoned and isn't hard slogging. It also answers many of the questions and 'sky is falling' scenarios that are being mooted here. Just read it, people; it won't hurt you to actually know what you're talking about.

[Raga]

Did everyone commenting actually read the court document? At least read the first two pages to have a clearer picture of what the issue is all about.

The issues seem to be particularly the following:

• The publisher of the software was advocating illegal application, and at times responded to user queries on downloading copyrighted materials. The publisher marketed the product as an alternative for a software (Napster) that was ruled as illegal, implying that - despite using a slightly different technology - the end-users could continue to infringe on others' copyrights through the use of their software.
• The publisher of the software took no measures towards filtering out copyrighted materials despite being aware of their software's illegal application.
• The publisher of the software gained revenue from the service through advertisement.

In other words, the issue is not over banning a medium (such as FTP - File Transfer Protocol) per se, the issue is with a specific company encouraging its users to use their product for illegal purposes, whether explicitly or implicitly.

It's like the difference between:

"Here we have a brand new series of kitchen knives that chop your vegetables into real fine cubes." (Appropriate.)

And:

"Here we have the brand new killer knives series, helping you easily inflict lethal wounds to your victim." (Explicit.)

Or:

"Here we have the brand new knives series that some use for killing and say they work particularly well if you aim between the ribs, but remember that you shouldn't use our knives to kill anyone." (Implicit.)

That should illustrate the issue.

[ROF]

I guess the next generation DVD media war has ended. More than 50% of the uses for Blue-ray or HD-DVD is to infringe copyright and therefore neither has won the media war. Hollywood won, but now they can't distribute their IP because that would encourage violation of copyright laws by distributing media containing copyrighted works which more than 50% of the population will want to make backups of.

I think Supreme Court Shot the MGM Lion today, but the studio execs are probably too stupid to realize it.

[ROF]

I think some people here fail to realize even after reading the ruling that this applies not only to services but hardware manufacturers as well.

[That Bastid]

Not one, but TWO posts in a row?

Rof, if you had READ the ruling you would know that it SPECIFICIALLY EXCLUDES hardware with potential infringing uses.

repeat after me:

SPECIFICALLY

EXCLUDES

HARDWARE

[AlecWest]

I think some people here fail to realize even after reading the ruling that this applies not only to services but hardware manufacturers as well.

It won't be long until such a case makes its way to the Supreme Court. Better buy yourself a DVD burner now ... while you still can. In the meantime, BJ_M is correct in pointing out that that this is just a symbolic victory for the media industry ... that it merely shuffles responsibility for ruling on the matter back to the lower courts. In doing so, the Supreme Court merely indicated lower courts could take other factors into consideration but did not mandate them to do so. Their decision also indicated that these matters are better handled in Congress than in the court system.

Bottom line? The Supreme Court agreed unanimously that a lot of companies distributing file-sharing software are naughty (grin). But, that's pretty much as far as they went. The onus now is on the lower courts and Congress to either agree with the SC ... or not. In short, a non-decision decision.

[That Bastid]

It's really scary that you're all so unwilling to read. Alec, that case (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.) was heard by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, and was cited in the current opinion:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417, as holding that
the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing
uses could not give rise to contributory liability for infringement
unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances
of infringement and failed to act on that knowledge. Because
the appeals court found respondents’ software to be capable of substantial
noninfringing uses and because respondents had no actual
knowledge of infringement owing to the software’s decentralized architecture,
the court held that they were not liable. It also held that
they did not materially contribute to their users’ infringement because
the users themselves searched for, retrieved, and stored the infringing
files, with no involvement by respondents beyond providing
the software in the first place. Finally, the court held that respondents
could not be held liable under a vicarious infringement theory
because they did not monitor or control the software’s use, had no
agreed-upon right or current ability to supervise its use, and had no
independent duty to police infringement.


And where did you get the idea that the lower courts are free "not to agree" with a Supreme Court ruling? Don't they cover that in 9th grade?

[ROF]

Not one, but TWO posts in a row?

Rof, if you had READ the ruling you would know that it SPECIFICIALLY EXCLUDES hardware with potential infringing uses.

repeat after me:

SPECIFICALLY

EXCLUDES

HARDWARE

hmmm . . . quoted from the ruling page 2:


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, going beyond mere distribution
with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting
acts of infringement by third parties

Funny, last time I checked my computer, Mp3 Player, CD Burner, DVD Recorder, etc. are all devices. I think you need some reading comprehension or you could borrow my lenses if the text isn't clear enough.

[Raga]

One becomes liable if he markets the product:

...with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action...

That makes it very clear that we aren't talking about particular devices, mediums or protocols along with their potentials, or even their present application - we are talking about marketing and intended use.

It is also clear that there would not be a problem if the said product was "capable of substantial
noninfringing uses".

I don't see what the fuzz is all about. You aren't supposed to incite others for criminal activity, plain and simple.

[AlecWest]

And where did you get the idea that the lower courts are free "not to agree" with a Supreme Court ruling? Don't they cover that in 9th grade?

Applesauce. Point me to the specific wording in their decision that mandates lower courts to reverse their decisions? As BJ_M mentioned in a previously quoted article:

But in Monday’s ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

That's could ... not should or must. Read the last paragraph of page 24 of the Supreme Court's decision (page 29 of the PDF file). All the Supreme Court did was "vacate" the Appellate Court decision. They did not reverse it. Didn't they cover that in the 9th grade? And didn't they cover the tendency of Appellate and District courts to sometimes disagree with the Supreme Court and refuse to hear a case sent back to them ... in essence, leaving their decision intact?

The Supreme Court had this case right in their lap. They could have set a precedent by awarding damages ... but they didn't. Why?

[JimJohnD]

It shouldn't come as a suprise as this is the same bunch that just said your city/state can take your property and give it to Wal-Mart or any other Private Developer for what they think is a "fair" price.