Slashdot Mirror
Lessig on Streamcast/Grokster Decision
scubacuda writes "Lessig has an editorial in Financial Times regarding
the recent court decision in favor Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") and Grokster. 'The wisdom of this rule is something innovators in Silicon Valley are increasingly coming to see. When courts intervene to maintain copyright's balance, the inevitable consequence is that innovation is harmed. If every innovator with technologies affecting content must bear the burden of a lawsuit before his innovation can be allowed, there will be many fewer innovations in the distribution and creation of content. That in turn will harm artists and technologists alike. Better to let the innovation happen, and then consider whether the change caused by the innovation is so significant as to require new legislation by the legislature.'"
Lawrence Lessig: Grokster's victory for innovation
By Lawrence Lessig
Published: May 9 2003 16:35 | Last Updated: May 9 2003 16:35
In 1998, in a string of judicial decisions, courts in the United States found Napster responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on its file-sharing network. The burden of these decisions effectively closed down the company. Last month, a district court held that neither Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") nor Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on the file-sharing networks they supported. (They both initially supported the "FastTrack" network; Streamcast now builds its client on the "Gnutella" platform.) Thus, Napster: bad; Grokster/Morpheus: good.
This decision has surprised commentators. From 10,000 feet, the two file-sharing networks look very much alike. But they are technically quite different, and that difference clearly mattered to the court. Yet more important than the technology is the difference in judicial attitude that the district court displayed. It is this difference that would really matter if upheld on appeal.
Grokster and Morpheus run on peer-to-peer networks, which means that content is shared not between them and their users but between the users of the network themselves. This was true of Napster as well. The difference is that Napster kept a central list of all the available files, which enabled it to control who got access to what content. That meant that Napster could be held responsible for copyright infringement happening on its network. Because Napster benefited from the infringement and had the opportunity to stop it, the courts held Napster responsible.
The design of the Morpheus/Grokster networks, however, means that the defendants do not have the same opportunity. Because there is no central list of files that can be shared, neither Grokster nor Streamcast are able to control the content that users access. There is therefore no way for either company to take steps to block infringing sharing.
No doubt, the court observed, these companies benefited from the sharing. And no doubt, it went on, peer-to-peer networks were designed in part to avoid the ability to block infringing sharing. But because the law requires that there be both a benefit from the infringement and an opportunity to do something to stop it, District Court Judge Stephen Wilson was not willing to find either company responsible.
The reason the court hesitated is a good one. As the district court reminded us, the practice in copyright cases has not been for courts to expand liability in response to new technologies. It is instead that any such expansion be done by Congress. This principle was the basis upon which the Supreme Court decided that Sony was not responsible for the copyright infringement that the VCR enabled. As the Court reasoned, no doubt Sony could have designed the VCR to disable the ability of users to record shows from the air. But whether Sony should have been so required was a decision for Congress. The only question that a court should ask is whether the technology is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". If it is, whether its use should on balance be considered infringing is a question for policymakers, not courts.
In the VCR case, Congress eventually decided that the use should be permitted - even though, without doubt, many people were copying copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, and, no doubt, Sony benefited from that copying. But as Congress and the courts well recognise, copyright law is not absolute. The lines that Congress draws must balance the interests of users and copyright owners to the end of spurring innovation. That balance is inherently political. And therefore, when a new technology changes the balance, the appropriate role for a court is to leave it to the political branch to decide whether the change is to be allowed or to be remedied through new legislation.
The wisdom of this rule is s
Kinda like "innocent until proven guilty". Right?
Interestingly enough, I do feel that innovation is what is truly being attacked when the DMCA "hammer" (or war drums) are beat upon all the time.
... it's obvious that there is a problem here. We want more content, but when we steal it, the companies we love and hate so much won't be as willing to give it. Hence Palladium, DRM, etc.
.. never.
On another note, and one seldomly discussed
If people could throttle themselves, the problems that we have with content distribution wouldn't be problems at all. Sadly, we can't, so legislation is absolutely neccessary in throttling all those people that can't throttle themselves.
That delicate balance between the rights of the societ and the rights of the owner of the content is dynamically changing, but it is definitely true that technology has given society the ability to very easily steal from the owner of copyrighted material.
Everyone is to blaim. The RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft (in some cases), etc. are hardly in the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why they complain so much since it's obvious that they should try to start a better music distrubtion model than what they already have. Sometimes sacraficing profits for common sense is a smart thing. We're also to blaim. People using Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella2, etc. are thieves (for the most part). The last time I found a nice piece of uncopyrighted material on kazaa and not on Google was
At any rate, it's a mess out there. The RIAA and MPAA are definitely stupid. They're planning on waging war with their entire customer base (or a large part of it). I'm not bussiness guru, but I definitely see a problem with that.
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. People should buy their stuff, and big companies need to take their heads out of their rear ends, and realize that their is money to be made where the biggest battles are being waged.
I can imagine what the RIAA/MPAA would think if we were today debating the freedom of the press. After all, newspapers can be used to STEAL copyrighted works! This must be stopped! It's not the messenger, it's the message. So maybe Napster/Grokster/Morpheus are mostly used for infringing...but they in themselves are not infringing anything. If I make a telephone call to get my gang together to conduct a bank robbery, the law doesn't hold the phone company liable. I know about common-carrier laws, but this is a good comparison. It's the message, not the messenger.
No. 'Supernodes' take care of the cataloguing of files on KazAa. New Gnutella distros use 'SuperPeers' for the same thing. And any user can turn their computer into a supernode or superpeer (at considerable bandwidth expense). So there's no central server keeping the network afloat.
call downloaders thieves
call downloading or copying theft or stealing.
Copyright infringement is never theft; it does not meet the definition of theft, especially the part about "taking" (if you create a new copy of an item, you are not taking the item).
The argument "you are depriving artists of money" argument does not wash either, due to the fact that many, if not most, instances of copyright infringement involve situations where the copier would not have paid the artist in the first place.
In the cases of bootlegs, mashes, or out of print songs being downloaded off p2p networks, there is never a loss of money to the company and artist: they refuse to sell the material in the first place!
The connection to the artist's money is tenuous at best. If a copier is a "thief", then so is anyone who protests a business. In both examples, no actual theft takes place, but there is sometimes a loss of money to a business.
It may be a crime, but it is not theft.