Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case

CrystalFalcon writes "Wired News reports that a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments in a landmark case involving Grokster and Morpheus that could decide the future of peer-to-peer services, and may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior." The appeal against last April's Grokster/Morpheus court win will take a while to shake out, though: "At Tuesday's hearing, each side will have 30 minutes to present its arguments and answer questions from the three judges. The judges will likely take several months to issue an opinion on the matter."

Comments

9th Circuit

[stibles]

Oooh... the 9th Circuit. We're pretty much GUARANTEED a good time with this case. The Ninth is well known to contain the most crackpot judges of any circuit in the country.

Re:9th Circuit

[loucura!]

It was put in during the Red Scare in the 1950's to differentiate us from those godless commies. If it was so easy to put it in, why are you people so opposed to removing it?

Betamax

[mmca]

As quoted in the article:

In the landmark Sony Betamax case in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not liable for contributory copyright infringement for selling VCRs that allowed consumers to tape content from their televisions.

What was presented that makes this case different? Just because its on the internet? There seems to be this overwheleming need to make laws to cover things that already exisit just because it is now online. We have too many laws at it is.

-M

Re:Betamax

[AndreyF]

What was presented that makes this case different? Just because its on the internet? There seems to be this overwheleming need to make laws to cover things that already exisit just because it is now online. We have too many laws at it is.

Everything about it is different. The argument you are referring to was effectively used in defense of Sharman Networks (the creators of Kazaa). It related to the creation of p2p networks (gnutella, freenet, etc.), NOT the question at hand: the subpoena power of the RIAA under the DMCA, which is what this case is about.

Both relate to p2p, but in completely different ways.

Re:Betamax

[Erasmus Darwin]

"What was presented that makes this case different?"

I believe the main difference is that the people running the P2P networks still have on-going contact with the activity on that network. If I buy a VCR from Sony, they have no idea what I'm doing with it. If I hop on a network run by Morpheus, they still have some theoretical involvement with what's going on.

I'm honestly not decided on this issue (since I'm pro-copyright but I dislike the thought on having all online speech regulated), but I do think there's enough of a difference between this and the Betamax case that it should go to the courts again.

Re:OT: Why so long?

[alen]

They have other cases to decide. They also need to research the law on this before issuing a decision. Each side will present a brief with many quotes of prior case law. The judges will need to research the briefs before issuing a decision. The oral arguments are just a summation of the briefs that are submitted. Many parties will also submit friend of the court briefs.

Re:OT: Why so long?

[Seby123456]

The 60 minutes would probably be just the oral submission. There would be bucketloads of documents to back up their oral submission, as well as purely documentary evidence itself. Its this paperwork that really chews up the time getting through.

Re:OT: Why so long?

[Alien54]

If the judges take 60 minutes to hear arguments from plaintiff and defendant, why do they take months to render a verdict?

Just my two bits

I imagine both sides are submitting piles of documents to go along with their cases, heavily footnoted. Add in similar documentation by people filing supplemental "friends of the court" briefs. Plus all of the case law and court decisions that are referenced. Stir well. Repeat for all of the other cases on their schedule.

IANAL, etc.

Re:How is that figured?

[Artifakt]

If you look at a reasonable spread, like 10 years, or even just the time the current set of judges on the 9th district have all sat together, or the time since GWB took office, the 9th is far from first place on % overturned, and not even in 1st place on total numbers.
You can take an odd sample, i.e. for the three weeks in early april 2001, and the 9th may be in first place for that time. That's where this claim started, when some conservative talk-radio hosts mentioned that for the last few weeks, the 9th was being overturned a lot, and it's become exaggerated repeatedly since then, chiefly by other conservatives. It's not even clear that the original claim was either right or researched at all.