Support NeoGAF

[DarienA]

Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle

The U.S. Supreme Court rules against file-sharing service Grokster in a closely watched piracy case.
June 27, 2005: 11:02 AM EDT

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.


Rest of article:

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




My question... can company's that sell computers, email software, vcr's, DVD burners, etc. also be held liable?

I see and understand both sides on this argument... but I find this ruling... absurd to say the least.

 

[human5892]

My question... can company's that sell computers, email software, vcr's, DVD burners, etc. also be held liable?

You hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that this contradicts the ruling from a few decades ago concerning VCRs. You can't restrict the use of something that can be used illegally.

Hell, why stop here? Let's hold gun companies reliable for homicides, and McDonald's responsible for hypertension and heart disease. Where does the buck stop?

 

[Phoenix]

Pirates am cry...

 

[Baconäger]

"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.

I can't really disagree with that, but what service is promoting illegal usage?

 

[Phoenix]

Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle


My question... can company's that sell computers, email software, vcr's, DVD burners, etc. also be held liable?

I see and understand both sides on this argument... but I find this ruling... absurd to say the least.

Computers, no, emailsoftware, no, vcrs - perhaps, dvd burners, no. What's the difference? The extent of legitimate uses and the fact that they cannot have any direct control over the process. Since Grokster et all control their infrastructures and profit from that infrastructure, they can't just say "oh we can't do anything about it".

 

[vatstep]

I can't really disagree with that, but what service is promoting illegal usage?

Yeah, that's what I want to know. But it's probably a good thing that the literature states that they can sue services that INTEND for users to download copywritten material (still, I don't know any of these), rather than any service that COULD be used to download copywritten material (like Bittorrent, Google, etc).

 

[SteveMeister]

You hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that this contradicts the ruling from a few decades ago concerning VCRs. You can't restrict the use of something that can be used illegally.

Hell, why stop here? Let's hold gun companies reliable for homicides, and McDonald's responsible for hypertension and heart disease. Where does the buck stop?

Apples and oranges. P2P networks allow for completely unrestricted sharing of data to anyone, anywhere, any time. When you're talking about VCRs or recordable DVDs, you have physical media that needs to be delivered to each individual one at a time. Much larger effort required for mass distribution of copyrighted materials, and so most people don't do it. P2P is effortless, and so many people do it.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

So does this ruling stop illegal filesharing? Really?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Can they release the software for "free" and ask for "donations"? Wouldn't that work?

 

[Phoenix]

Can they release the software for "free" and ask for "donations"? Wouldn't that work?

By the 'letter of the law', probably. Then it would just get dragged back into court again and fester for several years before USSC ruled on it again.

This ruling is well intentioned, but has some rather interesting chilling effects...

 

[human5892]

Apples and oranges. P2P networks allow for completely unrestricted sharing of data to anyone, anywhere, any time. When you're talking about VCRs or recordable DVDs, you have physical media that needs to be delivered to each individual one at a time. Much larger effort required for mass distribution of copyrighted materials, and so most people don't do it. P2P is effortless, and so many people do it.

You have a point in that P2P allows for much easier illegal actions, but I still have trouble with a law finding fault with a technology and not the way in which that technology is used. I think going after people trading movies and such would be a more fair way of going about it.

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

 

[Ecrofirt]

The Supreme Court can suck on deez nutz.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

You have a point in that P2P allows for much easier illegal actions, but I still have trouble with a law finding fault with a technology and not the way in which that technology is used. I think going after people trading movies and such would be a more fair way of going about it.

Read the article. Read what vat said. They aren't finding fault with a technology. They are finding fault with people who sell a technology by promoting the illegal actions its capable of.

 

[DarienA]

Read the article. Read what vat said. They aren't finding fault with a technology. They are finding fault with people who sell a technology by promoting the illegal actions its capable of.

Ok but since when has Grokster sold their P2P software by promoting that you could use it for illegal actions?

Hell what company has ever done that?

This sounds like a backhanded victory for Hollywood at best because of that wording...

 

[Link1110]

I can't really disagree with that, but what service is promoting illegal usage?

From what I read, the original Napster had something on its website promoting illegal usage. Today's services though are likely more careful than that.

What I want to know is how will this affect the Vanuatu-Based services Kazaa and WinMX?

 

[human5892]

Read the article. Read what vat said. They aren't finding fault with a technology. They are finding fault with people who sell a technology by promoting the illegal actions its capable of.

It's semantics, really. The first line of the article sums it up:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that companies that sell file-sharing software can be held liable for copyright infringement.

Regardless of individual justification by the justices, a precident has been set for holding file swapping services liable for copyright infringement based solely on the fact that their services can be used for that purpose. The implications of this don't sit well with me.

 

[Ghost]

You hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that this contradicts the ruling from a few decades ago concerning VCRs. You can't restrict the use of something that can be used illegally.

Hell, why stop here? Let's hold gun companies reliable for homicides, and McDonald's responsible for hypertension and heart disease. Where does the buck stop?

Im willing to bet it stops just short of major US corporations.

 

[SteveMeister]

It's semantics, really. The first line of the article sums it up:



Regardless of individual justification by the justices, a precident has been set for holding file swapping services liable for copyright infringement based solely on the fact that their services can be used for that purpose. The implications of this don't sit well with me.

Because God forbid someone should infringe upon your "right" to obtain or distribute copyrighted material without compensating the copyright holder in the manner they choose.

 

[The Faceless Master]

does AIM count as a file sharing app?

they mention the ability to send files to others!


1) make a short film and then coincidentallt\y *wink* have someone send it over AIM
2) ...
3) profit

actually, wait, aim isnt for sale, nevermind...

 

[whytemyke]

The opinion is unique as the court is holding that these are products designed with the intent on distributing products which infringe on copyright law. This is different from case laws such as the VCR examples used already because the VCRs were not considered a tool which PROMOTES copyright infringement, although it allowed for it. But the movie/music industry has proven to the SC that some of these pay services are made with the intent of distributing music/movies illegally, with the idea of legal transactions taking place as a secondary notion in the software development.

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 reliable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

I really see nothing wrong with this ruling. They're just supporting the laws as they see fit, anyways. Could you imagine what would happen if they went against this ruling? Kazaa would be perfectly able to charge others for sharing stolen music to begin with, and that situation would create much more havoc than anything that the current ruling does. If you're going to allow Kazaa to charge for stolen music, then by comparison, if someone is selling stolen cars, you couldn't touch them, even though their actions play a huge part in the criminal actions taking place.

It's unfair to compare this to the VCR stuff anyways, as VCRs do not actually promote illegal use, they just allow for it. If you'd like to compare something to VCRs then you'd have to compare CD Burners to VCRs... as both are devices which allow people to take illegal actions but neither are made specifically for that purpose. At least not yet.

EDIT: I pulled this from the actual opinion of the court. It addresses some of the things you guys were saying. I'd suggest that before you go and spout off about Supreme Court opinions and how they don't hold up... you actually read the opinions before sounding stupid.

Distributing that software gave rise to no liability in the
court's view, because its use did not provide the distributors with actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement. Case No. CV 01 08541 SVW (PJWx) (CD Cal., June 18,
2003), App. 1213.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 380 F. 3d 1154 (CA9 2004). In the court's analysis, a defendant was liable as a contributory infringer when it had knowledge of direct infringement and materially contributed to the infringement. But the court read Sony Corp. of America v. Uni-versal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417 (1984), as holding
that 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.

 

[human5892]

Because God forbid someone should infringe upon your "right" to obtain or distribute copyrighted material without compensating the copyright holder in the manner they choose.

Now you've removed yourself from the debate. That's not what I was saying at all. You should've responded more like this:

The opinion is unique as the court is holding that these are products designed with the intent on distributing products which infringe on copyright law. This is different from case laws such as the VCR examples used already because the VCRs were not considered a tool which PROMOTES copyright infringement, although it allowed for it. But the movie/music industry has proven to the SC that some of these pay services are made with the intent of distributing music/movies illegally, with the idea of legal transactions taking place as a secondary notion in the software development.

I can buy that, although I still say that the "illegally" part of "distributing music/movies" is up for further debate. Still, you make a good distinction between the programs and a VCR.

 

[SteveMeister]

Now you've removed yourself from the debate. That's not what I was saying at all. You should've responded more like this:

Don't mind me, I'm just taking my customary jab at those who try to justify downloading illegal content. It wasn't necessarily directed specifically at you

 

[human5892]

Don't mind me, I'm just taking my customary jab at those who try to justify downloading illegal content. It wasn't necessarily directed specifically at you

Ah, okay. No worries then.

 

[Fuzzy]

Is Mark Cuban still supporting Grokster's legal budget?

 

[whytemyke]

I can buy that, although I still say that the "illegally" part of "distributing music/movies" is up for further debate. Still, you make a good distinction between the programs and a VCR.

Well, further into the opinion it shows evidence that was used against Streamcast. Two BIG pieces of evidence which made it really obvious that those two companies, unfortunately representing all p2p programming companies, had no real qualms with illegal business taking place:
1) 90% of the materials being downloaded with their software was copyrighted material.
2) Streamcast, the company that owns Morpheus, had their advertising record brought into play, where they clearly made it known that they intended to pick up the marketshare from the Napster dropoff, "After the supreme court shuts them down, if they don't go out of business first." there was clearly the motive there to take the people using napster, which was almost exclusively copyright-infringed material, and implement them onto their own network once napster went down.

Kinda hard to take that and make it look like you had the intent of providing a legitimate service for legal people, heh. It sucks for a lot of p2p companies, but I imagine if they get taken to court, any legit ones will just have to show that they have a strong purpose other than allowing their users to download copyrighted materials. If those numbers were switched, and Streamcast had 90% of its users downloading noncopyrighted materials, and only 10% abusing the system, then I suspect the Supreme Court probably would have ruled with those two services, saying that they clearly offer a means of service which doesn't support illegality.

 

[Mashing]

Seriously, has anyone here never illegally downloaded a song/game/porn/whatever off a peer to peer fire sharing program? Not many would say yes I suppose. Those things wouldn't be near as popular as they are if it wasn't for ease of use of acquring illegal material.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle

The U.S. Supreme Court rules against file-sharing service Grokster in a closely watched piracy case.
June 27, 2005: 11:02 AM EDT

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.


Rest of article:

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




My question... can company's that sell computers, email software, vcr's, DVD burners, etc. also be held liable?

I see and understand both sides on this argument... but I find this ruling... absurd to say the least.

The ruling was for SOFTware. Computers, VCRs, and DVD Burners are HARDware.

 

[DarienA]

The ruling was for SOFTware. Computers, VCRs, and DVD Burners are HARDware.

That does not change the question I asked.

 

[Jeffahn]

P2P will evolve. The foundations have been laid and will be hard to uproot. I think the only difference now will be that P2P companies will have to be less obvious about what their products are used for. BT will just continue un-affected -maybe with some more 'heat', but onward none-the-less.

I am understanding correctly in that this only applies to companies that charge for P2P? I didn't even know that Grokster did that.

...

 

[Phoenix]

The ruling was for SOFTware. Computers, VCRs, and DVD Burners are HARDware.

Hardware which contains SOFTware

 

[Xenon]

They should go after the auto industry for making cars that go over 65mph

 

[maharg]

Makers of VCRs were not simply found to be not liable. They found that the primary use to which VCRs were put to -- timeshifting -- was not against copyright law. The studios were trying to get that considered as copyright violation as well. If they had succeeded in that, VCRs would have been illegal too, since their primary purpose would have been considered illegal.

 

[Deku Tree]

They should go after the auto industry for making cars that go over 65mph

:lol

 

[RonaldoSan]

It's all about money!

If it's possible to hold a company responsible for their customers misbehavior, then where would it leave the weapon industry?

 

[scorcho]

isn't it more specific to companies that blatantly advertise their products for trading/sharing warez and the like? this doesn't diminish the legality of p2p programs, just makes their ability to market themselves as a free-for-all of illegal music/movie/program downloads nil.

 

[whytemyke]

They should go after the auto industry for making cars that go over 65mph

Uh, yeah... if only they could pretend that the 10th Amendment, Commerce Clause and any number of hundreds of examples of case history didn't exist.

Here's a comparison for everyone. THEY SHOULDNT PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS... ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT BUY DRUGS.

 

[Deku Tree]

Here's a comparison for everyone. THEY SHOULDNT PROSECUTE DRUG DEALERS... ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT BUY DRUGS.

No, it's more like "They shouldn't prosecute 'water pipe' shops. Only prosecute the people who use these 'water pipes' to do illegal drugs."

So tell me why it is still legal to sell bongs (er I mean water pipes)?

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Does anyone have the name of the case? I'd like to look it up to learn more about it.

 

[whytemyke]

No, it's more like "They shouldn't prosecute 'water pipe' shops. Only prosecute the people who use these 'water pipes' to do illegal drugs."

So tell me why it is still legal to sell bongs (er I mean water pipes)?

Jesus Christ... did you even READ the opinion of the court or are you just coming on here half cocked thinking you got the drop on a bunch of career lawyers because of a jerked-off article written by some deskjockey college intern at Cnn.com that you read? Let me tell you something-- your stupid comparisons to things outside of electronic and intellectual rights really don't mean shit, and neither does my drug comparison. I had hoped the drug comparison would be enough for you but obviously somebody is gonna have to hold your hand through this kind of shit. So go to my first reply on this post, and read the relevant parts of the opinion which I pulled from the opinion of the court written by Justice Souter. Then do yourself a favor and go to the supreme court website and read the entire opinion yourself. That way, before you come back here and say some stupid-ass false-logic comparison, you'll have some clue of what you're talking about when the court refers to the precedent presented in the Sony case, referring to the idea that a business does not count as having an alternate motive beyond it's possible purpose if 90% of its business is used for illegal means instead of its legitimate purpose.

Why don't they prosecute people who sell water pipes? I don't know. Maybe they have some other precedent. Maybe they don't have the time, or maybe they're just too apathetic. I'm an educated man but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently on the feasible justiciability of recreational toys that could be used for either dojo or tobacco.

But if you're ready to quit using stupid, dumbed-down metaphors and you're ready to start speaking the facts of the case, well, go do what I suggested and I guarantee that you won't be getting jumped at by people like me, who know what the fuck is going on because they've done trivial things like READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

LOL OMG MAYBE UR RITE THO, LIKE Y DO THEY PROSECUTE BUSINESSES WHEN PPL SLIP OUTSIDE? ROFL BUSINESSES SHOULDNT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY R INVOLVED IN LOL AMIRITE?!1

 

[Phoenix]

Grokster vs MGM

 

[Yossarian]

Does anyone have the name of the case? I'd like to look it up to learn more about it.

MGM v. Grokster

 

[Phoenix]

The decision can be downloaded here...

 

[seanoff]

Ok but since when has Grokster sold their P2P software by promoting that you could use it for illegal actions?

NAPSTER for one!!! They had copyrighted material on their own servers and advertised the fact.

Video recorders Sony Corp v Universal City Studios Inc, 464 US 417 (1984) won this case on the basis that personal use did not infringe copyright.

Widespread redistribution of those video recording would have been illegal. P2P allows you distribute this copyrighted material far beyond the normal way of sharing it your friends.

Grokster aren't helping themselves here with this stuff on their website

# Participation Level: Get higher priority by sharing more.
# Publishing: Share your music and movies with the rest of the world.

My question... can company's that sell computers, email software, vcr's, DVD burners, etc. also be held liable?

No they are protected by the other part of the Sony ruling that states if the object has significant non-infringing uses then it would not be useful to remove them from the market. And it can be easily argued that they have significant non-infringing uses.

 

[Deku Tree]

Jesus Christ... did you even READ the opinion of the court or are you just coming on here half cocked thinking you got the drop on a bunch of career lawyers because of a jerked-off article written by some deskjockey college intern at Cnn.com that you read? Let me tell you something-- your stupid comparisons to things outside of electronic and intellectual rights really don't mean shit, and neither does my drug comparison. I had hoped the drug comparison would be enough for you but obviously somebody is gonna have to hold your hand through this kind of shit. So go to my first reply on this post, and read the relevant parts of the opinion which I pulled from the opinion of the court written by Justice Souter. Then do yourself a favor and go to the supreme court website and read the entire opinion yourself. That way, before you come back here and say some stupid-ass false-logic comparison, you'll have some clue of what you're talking about when the court refers to the precedent presented in the Sony case, referring to the idea that a business does not count as having an alternate motive beyond it's possible purpose if 90% of its business is used for illegal means instead of its legitimate purpose.

Why don't they prosecute people who sell water pipes? I don't know. Maybe they have some other precedent. Maybe they don't have the time, or maybe they're just too apathetic. I'm an educated man but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently on the feasible justiciability of recreational toys that could be used for either dojo or tobacco.

But if you're ready to quit using stupid, dumbed-down metaphors and you're ready to start speaking the facts of the case, well, go do what I suggested and I guarantee that you won't be getting jumped at by people like me, who know what the fuck is going on because they've done trivial things like READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

LOL OMG MAYBE UR RITE THO, LIKE Y DO THEY PROSECUTE BUSINESSES WHEN PPL SLIP OUTSIDE? ROFL BUSINESSES SHOULDNT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY R INVOLVED IN LOL AMIRITE?!1

Relax a bit why don't you.

 

[maharg]

Grokster aren't helping themselves here with this stuff on their website

# Participation Level: Get higher priority by sharing more.
# Publishing: Share your music and movies with the rest of the world.

Er, to be fair the former is just a function of a fairness policy, and the latter is probably intending to refer to 'your music and movies' as music and movies YOU made. While obviously its primary use is indeed to pirate, these are trying to imply a non-infringing use.

 

[Phoenix]

No they are protected by the other part of the Sony ruling that states if the object has significant non-infringing uses then it would not be useful to remove them from the market. And it can be easily argued that they have significant non-infringing uses.

I would agree with that for all except DVD burners For every one person making a movie or storing pictures, I can point you to more people copying copyprotected DVDs, making bootlegs for resale, making 'backups' of grey market software and video content.