File-sharing software ruled legal

[kirpen]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5762021/

SAN FRANCISCO - Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. are not liable for the swapping of copyright content through their file-sharing software, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to movie studios and record labels.
Among other things, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the suppliers of the free peer-to-peer software, unlike Napster, were not liable for illegally swapped music and movies online because they don't have central servers where computer users can access copyrighted material.

"In the context of this case, the software design is of great import," Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel, which upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the bulk of the lawsuit brought by movie studios and record labels.

The panel noted that the software firms simply provided software for individual users to share information over the Internet, regardless of whether that shared information was copyrighted.

"The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution," Thomas wrote.

Napster was shut down after the 9th Circuit ruled that its centralized servers, which contained thousands of copyrighted songs, made it legally liable for contributing to copyright infringement.

Thursday's ruling could influence the entertainment companies' case against Sharman Networks Ltd., makers of the Kazaa program, which averages more users than any other file-sharing software.

Sony Betamax ruling key precedent
Attorneys representing a cadre of entertainment companies and copyright holders had argued their appeal in the Grokster-StreamCast case before the panel in February. The lawyers had hoped to persuade the appeals court to overturn an April 2003 decision, in which U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson in Los Angeles also ruled that Grokster and StreamCast aren't liable when computer users illegally trade content using their software.

Wilson had cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in the Sony Betamax case. The court said then that Sony wasn't liable when people used its Betamax videocassette recorder to copy movies illegally, since the technology had significant uses that did not violate copyrights.

But the studios and labels argued that while Sony could not control how consumers used their VCRs, Grokster and StreamCast could filter the copyright content from their systems, like they do with computer viruses, but refuse to do so, because the free songs and movies are what draw their users and ultimately generate ad profits.

Fred von Lohmann, a senior intellectual property attorney for San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued on behalf of StreamCast. He said the firms' software is used to swap live music by Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and Phish -- songs which the artists have allowed to be freely distributed.

During the hearing, Thomas questioned whether forcing the file-sharing firms to filter copyright content would ultimately do enough to quell file-swapping on the Internet.

"Aren't we just chasing the wind?" Thomas asked.

The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, 03-55894.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[d_unbeliever]

maybe they should sue the one who invented the Internet...so no more P2P file sharing

[ViRaL1]

You mean Al Gore? :P

[redwudz]

Their decision makes sense, which seems unusual for a US court. It is not the software or the software maker who is at fault for the wrong use of their product, it is the end user.

Of course it is hard for the media producers to come after individual users, though they would like to try.

This is probably round one of the final battle. More to come.

[Supreme2k]

This is news?! P2P software is just a tool. Personally, I think it's used for 99.999999999% illegal purposes, but since it can be used for legal means, there's your loophole.

[proxyx99]

That's more like it. They must have been smoking pot deliberating. This is definitely unusual decision...

[BobV]

Very refreshing, a verdict that places the blame where it belongs, the individual.

[yoda313]

Hello,

maybe they should sue the one who invented the Internet...so no more P2P file sharing

You mean Al Gore?

HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!

Good one! Also, has anyone made the PLANET CHANNEL? The one he wanted to show of earth to make us feel all as one (or some other nonsense)?
Kevin

[gitreel]

Like I said in the other thread,

I guess the industry goes back to suing john doe ip #s.

I read somewhere that at their current pace it would take about a thousand years to sue everyone.

[kirpen]

Al Gore never said he made the internet.

[jimmalenko]

That certainly makes sense to me.

I have always believed that it is not the downloader who has done anything wrong - it is the person who puts copyrighted material up for sharing in the first place that has done the wrong thing (be it an individual or company).

If I download something that would be considered warez on this site, AFAIK I haven't broken copyright. I haven't distributed or reproduced anything.

Therefore true P2P software is OK in my books. All it does is provides a GUI for something that could be achieved by code level FTP if we really wanted to.

[painkiller]

Personally, I'm glad to see this decision finally came about.

Yet, it's like I described the Internet to a work compadre some time ago:

The Internet is much like your cutlery draw in the kitchen.
The tools can serve up mighty good things, but some damn fool will surely use some of them for no good.

As for Al Gore, he claimed to have been responsible for driving the invention of the internet. And if you think he's the only politician tooting their own efforts - - -

[ViRaL1]

Gore: "...I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

I don't dispute that it was taken out of context, but those ARE his words.

[kirpen]

Yes he was one of a few congress people who took the initiative in getting the internet funded. He didnt sy he made it but he did take a leading role in getting funding to turn the Arpanet into what is now the internet.

[adam]

Just to put the thread's subject in perspective, this case only applies to the ninth circuit. It doesn't mean that P2P is "legal" in general, though I would guess that most other jurisdictions would come to this same conclusion.

But since all the big infringement cases are going to be filed in the 9th Circuit anyway, this may be a moot point.

I do think that P2P creators could probably do at least a little more filtering of content to remove the obviously infringing material. There is no doubt that they need and want that kind of content swapped since that's what brings them business. Still, its a sound ruling.

[proxyx99]

I do think that P2P creators could probably do at least a little more filtering of content to remove the obviously infringing material. .

Question: what is the proper amount of filtering, how much is too little and how much is too much? Gosh, it sounds like the case with nudity... and porn. Just leave filtering to me...

[adam]

Well who knows? That's why I only said I thought they could at least do a little more. Basically, I have no idea what amount of filtering would or should be adequate, all I know is that these services don't appear to do any filtering for copyrighted content at all. My point is only that, despite the legal uses for such programs, they still thrive off of the illegal uses. If that's the way the cookie crumbles then that's fine. But the inherant difficulties with placing reasonable limits on filtering should not be an excuse to stick your head in the sand.

Pornography is a perfect analogy. US law, and generally most other countries, do virtually no "filtering" of pornography. Its something that is intended for adults and thus adults can do their own filtering. Yet we do "filter" out the extreme like child pornography because it can be directly traced to the damage of a specific person. The same could easily be done with P2P when a file can be directly traced to the damage of a specific copyright holder.

[proxyx99]

I hear you but any little filtering will make the columns empty (remember Napster?) and users migrate to another service. This is what makes the cookie appealing to wide audiences. Any change in flavor and the magic is gone.

[adam]

I hear you but any little filtering will make the columns empty (remember Napster?) and users migrate to another service. This is what makes the cookie appealing to wide audiences. Any change in flavor and the magic is gone.

Bingo, that's exactly my point. Accepting that infringement will occur is one thing, standing on the sidelines and rooting for it to occur is another. That's just the nature of P2P.

[proxyx99]

Isn't this your bread and butter? It's like wishing personal injury lawyer healthy clients.

[adam]

Isn't this your bread and butter? It's like wishing personal injury lawyer healthy clients.

Well being in Texas, no. If I were in California maybe I'd be more biased. But contrary to popular belief, most lawyer don't root for laws to be broken. Also PI Plaintiff's lawyers are a breed all their own.