Supreme Court Rules against Grokster 1249
furry_wookie writes "A few minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unaniumously against Grokster today. This ruling means that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the Internet. More info about the case here." That's not an entirely accurate statement -- what The Supremes said is that "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." The promotion is the key part of that statement.
Update: 06/27 18:00 GMT by T : Reader SilentBob4 points out this interview with EFF attorney Wendy Seltzer on the decision.
What was interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
From a legal perspective, that makes sense. Bittorrent has always been about just "large file distribution" and was initially pushed as an alternative for downloading movie trailers, large Linux distributions, etc. It's gotten a fair amount of traction among a great deal of media sites as a fantastic way for distributing their work. It just so happens that it can be used for illegal purposes, like other technology.
That's a far cry from some p2p software's claims of "Find any song, any movie, any show, in seconds!" Bittorrent was introduced as a means for downloading big files. Plenty of other p2p software was introduced almost explicitly for downloading copyrighted material, and advertised as such.
So while the ruling initially sounds like a blow to p2p software, the wording shows that it's simply a blow to software made and distributed expressly for infringing copyrights. I can understand how "if you're encouraging copyright infringement with your software you're just as guilty" can lead to unanimous agreement.
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this? In the United States, its legal to grow and smoke a plant that is known to cause cancer and kill you, but its illegal to grow and smoke a plant that can be used to relieve the pain from the cancer caused by the legal plant mentioned above.
Its all about big business. Weapons and defense is big business. File sharing apps are not. Tobacco and drug companies are big business.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
It is all about the money, but not all about "drugs." Hemp could still compete with Nylon rope, cotton cloth, and quite a few other big industries.
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.
So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often thought the opposite of this...and hence a main reason pot hasn't been legalized. How would a big company make money and the govt get taxes on a plant, that anyone could grow themselves in their backyard if legalized?
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a cup of coffee?
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently yes, it is. And the reason is simple... it was recognized by our founders that it is essential to a democracy for the citizenry to be able to, if need be, defend themselves fromt he government.
That means that it is reasonable, as a law abiding citizen, to desire the means to have lethal force available in your defense.
If that were the case, we'd be winning in Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
the P2P developers problem was that while they did come up with legal uses the perception of them was that they did that only for their court case
so , let's get this straight:
Yes, lets.
in the united states , it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal.
Yes. That statement is correct. I can purchase ammunition that is made with the sole purpose of defeating body armor. Since body armor is also legal, it is possible, but not probable, that someone may wear body armor while committing a crime that would warrant the use of deadly force to stop. The ability of citizens to purchase this ammunition allows them to protect themselves. If you use the above mentioned ammunition to kill a law enforcement officer while committing a crime, you will most likely get a death sentence.
by comparision, a device that may or may not be designed for, but is certainly capable of, infringing copyright is deemed illegal. the manufacturers at least attempt the pretense of proposing legal uses for the technology and make a somewhat-better-than-marginal case for its legit use. this is not fine or legal.
This statement is not correct. What the supreme court has said is that if you create something that CAN be used in the commission of a crime, and then ENCOURAGE its users to commit crimes with it, you may be held liable.
question for the supreme court: do you really believe the the copyright of the bay city rollers first album is more deserving of legal protection than a human life?
I can't answer for them, but for me, both victims of violent crimes and copyrights both need to be protected.
That said, copyright law is in serious need of revision. Apparently the government has lost sight of the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part.
The court could not have ruled otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing human beings in a very few circumstances, is permitted by law -- most notably self-defense. There have been many [student.oulu.fi] cases [nbc4.tv] of criminals wearing body armor.
In the courts opinion, it is reasonable to think that a citizen may have a legitimate usage for armor-piercing bullets. If a ammo manufacturer advertized their bullets as being "cop-killers" then they would be more analogous to the people who distribute a p2p system with the advertizing of "find any song, movie, show etc."
You're arguing about gun-control in general, which is actually counter to what you're (I think) advocating. The same defense that keeps guns legal -- there is in certain circumstances a legal reason to have a gun -- is the same arguement that will protect p2p as a whole. There IS a set of circumstances in which p2p can be legally justified, and thus the whole technology cannot and will not be banned. Just as legally, there ARE restrictions on how guns can be used, there are going to be legal restrictions on how p2p can be used.
Do I agree with this p2p ruling? Not really, I don't personally support the current copyright law, but as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question. We don't value anything more than individual liberty, because life without liberty is an abhorrent concept. We ruled against people promoting breaking the law, and not against p2p. How else COULD we have ruled?
Hmmm, not quite (Score:4, Informative)
Let me see here. What ammunition specifically are you talking about? Virtually any round fire from a rifle has the power to penetrate a 'bullet-proof' vest. They are only designed to stop handgun bullets. And that's about all they do.
The same ammunition used in common hunting rifles would slice through a kevlar vest like butter. If, perhaps, you are referring to the 5.7x28mm pistol round that was recently making the frenzied media headlines, the steel-cored version can't be sold here.
LA a "revolution"???? (Score:5, Informative)
Umm dude, speaking as one of the people who "brutally" put down the revolution (D Co, 1/149 Armor, CA ARNG), it was nothing of the sort. It was a bunch of people out to destroy and steal what they could while the police were overwhelmed. They had no political agenda beyond "I want that TV" or "I want to burn down that shop". Look at some of the TV interviews with looters during the riots- they're quite honest about what they were doing.
As far as being brutally put down, my unit despite being in one of the absolute worst areas of LA (Rampart) did not fire a shot, and indeed never used physical force beyond rounding up some illegal immigrants. (INS had a field day) The rioters in our area were in far more danger from the Korean storeowners who were armed to the teeth and not afraid to shoot back. There were a few bad instances (one about two blocks from my HQ) but the Guard had all the free food we could eat- people were stopping us on the streets to thank us for being there.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
In other words, the SCt weaseled out of a definitive ruling on the P2P question. They're good at weaseling out of such decisions these days - quite a shame. Maybe the next P2P company targeted by the AAs will push the Court to a clear ruling... maybe not then, either.
In short, this is a limited legal victory for the P2P community.
More importantly, it's a good practical step for the P2P community. If these decisions remain long, drawn-out, and in dire need of follow-up cases and mounting legal fees, then perhaps the AAs will decide that this battle isn't worth fighting. They've already made some recent noise about starting their own P2P services.
- David Stein
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
precisely... because it's not their job to make the law... just to be the final arbiter on how the law as it stands actually should be interpreted.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not quite right. The Court has always resolved cases by ruling on the most limited basis available. For instance, if a case can be dismissed either by an in-depth review of the First Amendment or by relying on a procedural legal error, it always relies on the latter.
This is different than issuing the most limited ruling possible. Every single case can be resolved on case-specific factors: "We find this way only because the activity occurred on a Wednesday, and the plaintiff was wearing red socks, and the defendant's first name is Homer. We decline to extend this ruling to any other combination of factors."
The Court shouldn't be doing this. This is the highest court in the land - it shouldn't waste time resolving questions that apply solely to the case at bar. When it rules, it creates precedent on which lower courts rely to dispose of similar cases. That is its job.
And this is why this decision is pointless. The ruling: "If you're going to create a P2P company, don't promote it for the purpose of violating copyright." Company response: "OK, we won't. Now are we legally in the clear?" This question is still open.
- David Stein
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
no, no, no!
Here's the problem. The Supremes didn't say "Grokster's advertising practice promotes the act of copyright infringement and any and all promotional materials and advertisements that do so are illegal." they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
The reason that's important is that a legal interpretation of some borderline ad-campaign could make X-brand software illegal (instead of making the company change the advertisement, pay a fine, etc).
The software and the advertisement are not the problem, the infringement is (although, seperately, the promotion itself is possibly illegal).
This ruling's reasoning is not far from "My kid played GTA and shot a cop, it's partly the game publisher's fault." No, it's not. It's the (hypothetical) kid's fault...you know, the one who actually did something wrong? I don't know what they're smoking in the court these days, but it must be good.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly that the point of whether the product is promoted one way or another is irrelevant. What is pertinent is that Grokster itself did not download any copyrighted material or found to be guilty of anything except the tangential copyright infringement of their users.
It shouldn't matter if they told their users to commit copyright infringement using their product. It shouldn't matter that they *encouraged* users to commit copyright infringement using their product. They, in fact, did not commit the crime, the user downloading the copyrighted material did.
Unless, of course, encouraging others to commit a crime is itself a crime. Something, of course, they were not on trial for to begin with, but which also stinks of a worse problem regarding First Amendment rights.
C
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
It is a crime -- Solicitation [wikipedia.org].
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, it's not medical marijuana.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. RTFA (and the order).
Nowhere do the words "making a piece of software" appear.
They are solely ruling on _distribution_ and distribution with demostrated prior intent at that.
Essentially they _are_ ruling that the promotion is the illegal bit - since without it or other "affirmative steps", the distribution of the device is not (for this reason) illegal.
What interests me is "with the object" and whether this means "with the sole object" - eg. Apple's rip-mix-burn campaign was only one promotion for one aspect of the Mac, so did they distribute "with the object of..." ? I don't think so, but IANAL - I think they are saying that the promotion of infringement has to be your only intent.
Note also that they are quite clear that they are not overturning Sony, and that the non-infringing uses tests still apply, just that they don't get you off the inducement hook:
Liability under our jurisprudence may be predicated on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts (as the Court's opinion develops) or on distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses. Sony, 464 U. S., at 442; see also 3 M. Nimmer & D.Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A][2] (2005). While the two categories overlap, they capture different culpable behavior.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they weaseled out of anything this time. By framing it as "the P2P question" and complaining about "weaseling", you are suggesting that you want either a unanimous "yes, any P2P is fine, even if it blatently encourages infringing uses" or a unanimous "no, P2P is horrible, even for solely legal uses". Neither is okay: yes to all P2P is bad because, even if "music should be free, etc...", copyright law still exists; no to all P2P is bad because it gets rid of legitimate uses like torrenting Knoppix ISO's. They came up with the best possible outcome, which is a compromise, stating that pitching software as primarily a way to infringe copyright is not okay. This is good. You shouldn't be encouraging the Supreme Court to make extreme decisions just to avoid "weaseling"!
Is "nuance" any better for you? (Score:5, Informative)
Bravo. What is it with our culture now? Making mature, considered decisions about something, decisions that require other parties to consider them outside the world of newsbites and so on, is now considered a sign of weakness, is it?!?
A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.
The Supreme Court, for all the current right-wing majority's nascent authoritarian learnings, is not in the business of sweeping decisions that reach far beyond the cases brought before them. Their 10 Commandments decision's coming up, and they're not going to be extending it to cover "In God We Trust" and evolution in schools just because they want to take a stand. There's a process, and it's not weak or waffly to follow it.
How mature are we, anyway?
This seems like a very narrow and careful ruling. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Small Steps
First make p2p's, that specifically advertise their copyright infringement policies, illegal.
Second take it one step further to p2p's that do not filter copyright infringement content are shut down
Third step force reporting on people who circumvent the filtering software
Forth step force reporting of all p2p users
Fifth step ban all p2p programs
Maybe not in this order, maybe not even complete, but small steps. The ruling the supreme court's made is totally fine with me - well because I agree copyright infringement is wrong. I just get worried about the next steps.
So a toast to my first tinfoil hat.
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
I hate to extend things, however, couldn't a similar extention be applied to almost anything? Let's try firearms...
How does this sound.....
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to DO BODILY HARM
You could replace almost ANYTHING. I think they have set a VERY POOR precedent. All IMHO of course...
MM
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it seems like this precedent would only apply if I sold guns with the advertising slogan "Kill your neighbor and loot their corpse with Burke brand firearms!" Versus advertising their use in hunting or self-defense, both legal uses of guns.
Or let's say I sold crowbars (with carbon-fiber grip to match my high-quality pistol grips; buy a matching set, makes a great gift!) with all of the bullet points related to how useful they are for breaking into cars and homes when the owner isn't around. If I claim my crowbars are vastly superior for B&E than any competing crowbar, would it be outrageous to claim that I expect that crowbar to be used for nefarious purposes despite all the legal uses for crowbars?
If that's the difference, then I can't say I find this decision alarming. Grokster advertised their ability to find illegal song downloads. So unlike any other file transfer method which is simply used for illegal transfers, Grokster actually made this one of the main selling points of their product. This defeats the usually quite valid argument that P2P is just a tool with legal and illegal uses -- Grokster decided that their marketing should focus on the illegal.
This kinda strikes me as similar to the situation in, say, head shops. Your glass "tobacco pipe" has plenty of legal uses, and thus they can sell it to you just fine. Mentioning the illegal uses is going to land either you, the customer, or especially you, the store in a heap of trouble.
All of which is to say that I'm not even sure that this case is establishing a precedent that didn't already exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not poor precedent at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, because it's not illegal to do bodily harm. Self-defense may require it. Police and security personnel, and the municipalities that procure them their weapons, could be properly lured by advertisements that promised "bodily harm". But try this out:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to COMMIT A CRIME
Make sense now? Once you read it that way, it makes a lot more sense. If I sell you something by saying it will let you break the law, then I can't fall back on its lawful uses once you use it the way I said you should.
Expect an impact on the makers of "radar" detectors.
If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortuantly, the only way to know is to be sued (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be true if you didn't take a moment to realize that our legislatures are more interested in corporate giveaways and popularity contests, and the American public is so apathetic, it's basically abdicated its responsibility as citizens to instead become consumers and ratings numbers.
In that light, I think the courts are forced to be the adults around here, whether they want to be or not.
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason being is because the justices of the Supreme Court (well some of them) don't judge on the basis of the constitutional text alone. The Constitution says nothing about Fair Use, filesharing, computers, the internet, or p2p. What they decide on is part constitution and part existing culture and similar law in otehr countries. When the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for minors, one of the points made was that no other developed country allowed the death penalty for minors.
Direct contradiction of previous rulings are the norm. In it's history, the Supreme Court first upheld segregation (Seperate but Equal) and then struck it down (Brown vs. Board of Ed). The lawyers for the Brown side of the case didn't argue on the basis of the constitution or whether or not the Equal side of Seperate but Equal was being fulfilled (which it wasn't), but on the basis of the inethicality of segregation.
And finally, this case doesn't direct contradict a previous ruling (unless your referening someting other than the Betamax decision). In Betamax, the Court ruled that a device (or it's creators) isn't liable for copyright infringement if it has substantial noningringing use under the doctrine of Fair Use. It set a litmus test under which, if something is found to be primarily working within Fair Use, it is not liable for a non-Fair Use infringement, but if it is found to be primarily used to infringe copyright, it is liable. Using this litmus test, the Supreme Court found Grokster to fail.
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:3, Informative)
Sue Bill Gates!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's not his fault (for a change) (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a second.
Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. The Supremes may be tech-illiterate, but the GPL is a legal document, not a technical one. I'm sure people with the level of legal experience on the Supreme Court are capable of understanding both the GPL itself and its implications
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
See? Now I'm good.
Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
Double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they Promote Killing People with it .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that is something I'd like to see
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be fantastic because it would clearly demonstrate that a produce (like a gun) that is made and sold legally, and is done so by an industry that falls all over itself to stress the safe and legal use of its products, would be finally free from frivalous lawsuits. The court seems to be acting pretty rational lately, and most higher courts have consistently found that the makers aren't liable for mis-use (just like Ford isn't liable for criminals using their vehicles as bank robbery getaway cars). The difference, with Grokster, is the actual promotion of the service as a way to violate copyrights.
Re:Double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
All Is Not Lost (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All Is Not Lost (Score:5, Informative)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this is not the end to piracy... just a new step...
This is great! (Score:3, Funny)
-Jesse (please note the sarcasm, people)
So (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the Supreme Court has made some really questionable decisions as of late. Precedent and politics rather than Constitutionality and liberty are the driving factors behind everything.
Thomas Jefferson opined in the Federalist Papers that we would not be in danger of losing our guaranteed liberties until all three branches of the government became united in their views and doctrines. It seems that we are moving in that direction, or perhaps we are already there.
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if you look in the FAQ, it points to two places for content to download:
http://bt.etree.org/ [etree.org] and http://smiler.no-ip.org/BT/BTlinks.php [no-ip.org]
The first one looks to be bootlegs of bands that allow bootlegging. The second, is a more of an all-things-BT clearninghouse, with links to more questionable sites among legit items.
So, how much infringing encouragement does BT have? What if I made my own client and billed it as the best video store next to Blockbuster? Is just that client liable, or is BT as a whole now advertising infringing uses?
I have a feeling that this won't be the last that SCOTUS will hear of this case.
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
That is a good view, but Thomas Jefferson did not write any of the Federalist Papers. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ [foundingfathers.info]
Thomas Jefferson was not a Federalist; rather, he was a Republican and upon becoming President tried to unite the groups.
RTFR (Score:5, Informative)
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) [supremecourtus.gov] before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story [ap.org]. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.
Text of the rulings! (Score:3, Informative)
Starting to read ...
Re:Text of the rulings! (Score:4, Informative)
Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. You can make the device, you just aren't allowed to actively benefit from its illegal use.
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Interesting)
If a bank inadvertedly (and after taking reasonable steps to ensure it doesn't happen) launders money, they make money on it. They just can't go encouraging it's use or not taking reasonable steps to ensure that it occurs.
Unless there's some "interest paid to the state" rule in money laundering law that I am unaware of.
Protection of betamax case removed (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12277 [slyck.com]
Promoting Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Big Margin Surprising, But Not the Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
selling a sporty car = speeding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:selling a sporty car = speeding (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this decision the end of the sports car?
The "intent" test is troublesome (Score:4, Insightful)
How are you supposed to read the minds of the developers to figure out if they "intended" to promote illegal use? Almost every designer of P2P software probably knew perfectly well that the service would be used to trade illegal copies, but they also believed that distribution of legal content is also something that would be promoted. Would it have to be "primary intent" to promote illegal use or just "secondary intent" is enough?
Also, in such "dual use" cases, it's strange to say that the service must be held liable only because the creator knew that illegal uses could be made of it and openly admitted it (equivalent to "promotion"). You end up cutting out all the legal uses too. This is the sort of "chilling efects" that we don't want to happen under the 1st Amendment.
Re:The "intent" test is troublesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Intent is everything.
The courts have faield the peopel again! (Score:3, Insightful)
This yanks the Betamx case from underneath Grokster, and forces a trail in the 9th circuit. Bascially, it gives the MPAA and RIAA a big biag hammer, and the only thign stopping is is the amount of money Grokster can spend at trial. This may bankrupt them, cause the cause te be decided by money, instead of a jury. And even then, an ignorant jury can issue some pretty bad verdicts.
Teh worst thing? Betamax no longer protects P2P - the Supremes have screwed the Betamax ruling over. Under thier ruling, the whole internet can be shut down and ISP's sued for infringement becuase they provide something that might be used for infringement.
What the hell is wrong with the courts? Its akin to convicting a woman of prostitution becasue she is "equipped" to commit the crime.
First the States rights are trampled in the Med Marijuana case, then the individual rights are trampled in the "Takings" case, now online rights are trashed in the Grokster case. The Supreme court needs to be reigned in. Or they are looking at triggereing a second American revolution.
Johnny, get your gun.
RTFA, the sky is not falling (Score:4, Insightful)
So unless you advertise that your service is useful for infringement OR you take steps to intentionally allow for infringement then this ruling doesn't affect you. That won't stop chicken little from posting that an FTP ban is around the corner though.
Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard Cases Make Bad Law (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm waiting to see the decision, but from the sound of it the Court did about as well as I could hope: rather than address the technology point, they addressed the business model. For now, it seems, Bram Cohen [bittorrent.com] is safe.
Makes sense, pretty much (Score:5, Insightful)
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to get back into your house or car when you've locked the keys inside," I'd expect protection from lawsuits.
At the same time, this makes the legal environment that technology producers have to deal with more unfriendly. Companies are going to start including DMA when they otherwise might not have, just to make sure they duck lawsuits. Copyright is good. But technology is more important than copyright. I don't like the idea of effectively suppressing technology to protect content producers.
Well, hopefully the chilling effect won't be that huge. Hopefully only egregious cases like Grokster will be seen in the courts. I'm holding my breath.
More info. (Score:5, Informative)
The RIAA/MPAA win the battle... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though they won the Grokster decision, the language of the decision, from what I've read..they've actually given up the whole game. Because this makes innovation actually EASIER. It might even defang the DMCA..actually I suspect it will.
See, all you have to do is market it's non-infringing use. P2P software makers, just link to people hosting public domain and publicly released stuff. That DVD copy software, for example, that was shut down because of this probably would have a pretty damn good defense under this ruling.
So what is this going to do? It's going to increase the exposure or public domain/CC/whatever material, and do nothing to shut down most of the P2P networks out there.
It's so ironic it's beyond funny.
Bittorrent is safe (Score:3, Insightful)
To use an analogy: I can sell guns. I just can't sell them with a slogan like "Number 1 tool for killing your ex-wife!" And I can't sell a P2P app named "Most efficient piracy software for pr0n and anime!" But the technology is safe.
This is good because it means The Supreme Court found a way to see through the jerks who are abusing this stuff without stifling innovation.
Before everyone freaks out... (Score:5, Informative)
Bram Cohen is not guilty. Tim Berners-Lee is not guilty. Settle down.
Read the opinion [ap.org].
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.
In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.
MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.
Text of opinions in PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Concurrence by Justice Ginsberg:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC.pdf [ap.org]
Concurrence by Justice Breyer:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf [ap.org]
Directors Cut (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.
Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling [slashdot.org], Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore - your post makes no sense - in the first sentence you laud the ruling as blatently criminal, and then go on to criticize those who voted against it. Usually when liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth, they reserve it for at least a seperate paragraph - not the next sentence.
Note the reference to objective - would XEROX pass (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly XEROX purpose in building a copier was so that people can make legitimate copies of documents.
In the digital world this also can be the objective of file sharing. Please have a look at www.irtc.org
We are now at the point where individuals and groups can create their own copyrighted material. IE. We don't need hollywood or the RIAA. A for instance is the Greatful Dead would gladly have glombed on to a system that file shares.
So - I do not see this ruling as being much of a problem.
I
Complete Ruling Online Now; Read for Yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Read the concurring opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
[1] Notably, they cite Linux.
Re:Read the concurring opinions (Score:5, Interesting)
The unanimous court opinion was based on the first (active inducement) analysis. That is much less devastating (to P2P, and indeed to the internet as we know it) than a holding based on the second theory (no substantial noninfringing use) would have been.
The concurring opinions were the Ginsburg opinion, to the effect of "who are you kidding, of course this technology has no substantial noninfringing use", and the Breyer concurrence, which says "looks like it may" and that the Ginsburg approach would require trashing the Sony decision.
So the real action, as the OP states, is in the concurring opinions, as to which the vote was 3-3. The "swing votes" here -- the guys who stayed on the sidelines of the concurring opinion debate -- are none other than Scalia, Thomas and the author of the lead opinion, Souter. Better put them in your goodnight prayers.
My guess is that the "swingers" are hoping that this decision will put this issue enough to rest and quell the present ferment just enough that they won't have to revisit it any time soon. I think there is a lot of unease in that quarter about the implications of in effect outlawing an entire technology, and worse, with no clear definition that would differentiate that from virtually any network transaction involving one machine serving content to another. I hope they are right, and will be able to leave this area alone for a while. It takes four votes to accept a case for review.
Close call, folks.
First paragraph says it all (Score:4, Informative)
My thoughts: the bad and the good (Score:4, Insightful)
The first concurrence, Ginsburg's (page 30 of the above file), sounded pretty dangerous to me. It lists over a page of evidence for non-infringing uses (pages 34-35) and then immediately dismisses at all without considering it. It doesn't even talk of the dangers to new technologies. But the last paragraph is the scariest. "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM... the Court... should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding. Now, IANAL at all, but that sounds pretty bad.
The second concurrence (page 38), also by three judges, is a lot nicer to me. Pages 42 and 44 have long lists of non-infringing uses including books, Linux software, and things licensed under Creative Commons. It even says that Grokster is protected by the Sony standard. It goes on to talk about how the Sony standard has been a fairly good one. It talks of how both non-infringing uses of Grokster and use of legal programs (like iTunes) will grow. It's still a concurring opinion, but the tone is much more mindful of protecting technology and looking forward to the future, a view that was missing from the first concurrence.
Can't believe I agree with this ruling! (Score:4, Interesting)
If I sell a gun and all my ads say, "Kids, you can kill your parents tonight with our new Blasto 350", I am encouraging murder. "Kids download all your favorite songs for free with Grokster." I am encouraging copyright infringement, (according to current copyright interpretation.)
That is clearly illegal. (MPAA/RIAA and the Grokster-ilk are both equivalent whores in my book, since they are all trying to make money off of someone elses sweat.)
You could also see how programs that might preload searches of "Currently Showing Hollywood films", are just begging you to download copyrighted material.
On the other hand, a program like eMule, Freenet, etc. is clearly very generic and doesn't care what you download or share, and makes no money off of it.
I see nothing in this that effects Bittorrent, eMule, or the other non-profit file sharing apps at all.
I thought for sure when I saw they had ruled against Grokster that the reading of their ruling would break my heart, yet instead, I feel all the bad people are hurt by this, and the good are unharmed. (Citizens can continue to download and share what they wish to, MPAA/RIAA will continue in the precipitous downfall, and Grokster-leaches will go out of business.)
Fabricated quote (Score:4, Interesting)
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
The words, "using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses" are not part of the ruling, and as many others have pointed out here, it's actually fairly misleading. I won't speculate on Ms. Crawford's motivations for the misquote, other than that she's probably just a confused journalist who thinks it's OK to bend ethical rules to get a story out.
Re:I'm Sad... (Score:5, Funny)
I agree, "Baby Love" was a great song.
Re:The core sentence: (Score:3, Informative)
Pirate all you want with Grokster (while it still exists) and you're not liable! The Supreme Court said so themselves!
How are they determining intent? What's the test? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, I was absolutely amazed how long the original Napster was able to operate. The intent of the product was clearly to promote copyright violation, and to profit from them. The whole "pirate" theme from their logo on seemed like they were just begging to be prosecuted.
On the gripping hand, Grokster doesn't seem to be taking anything like the same kind of approach, so I'd like to see the basis of the decision that Grokster was distributing "a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright". I guess I'll have to wait until it's posted and/or transcribed.
Re:This supreme court (Score:4, Insightful)
This state of affairs has been the case for many years. The ruling was a reaffirmation of the status quo. If you live in a state, city or county that can take land without review, be worried. I live in TN. All eminent domain attempts are subject to a jury trial. It is different from place to place.
Re:Sad time to be an American (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling had issue with the intent of the developers, not the technology. The development showed an intent to distribute protected media. If Henry Ford first introduced the "car" as a device for running over pedestrians, it wouldn't have been legal either.
This may come to a shock to you, but I don't think that people who make a career of law enforcement are in league with your sister's ex to allow her to be murdered so they can grab a Krispy Kreme. The REAL issue here is that the US is such a litigious society that no matter how well a civil servant performs their duties, someone will look for a payday by filing a law suit. What do they have to loose?
Hey, this might not be great for consumers, but let's be realistic. Why should a company invest in implementing and maintaining any infrastructure when it gives them no competetive advantage? Years ago, banks suied and won a case that allowed them to chanrge a $1.00 - $3.00 service fee for money withdrawn from their ATMs from rival bank card holders. Before that, a Bank may have 1,000 ATMs and had to share access to them, but not the cost of operating them, with their rivals. How is this fair?
So another way to say this is, "Reporters now face possible jail time for protecting sources who are suspected of committing a crime". Hey, this makes sense to me. Since a reporter is neither judge nor jury, why should they be able to decide who is guilty or inocent of wrong doing? That is for our legal system to decide. And since the media wields so much power, (witness Wendy's loosing millions on false claims that someone found a finger in their chili), it makes sense to provide a check and balance to that power.
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
In closing, you sir, are spinning lies. Way to go!