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

I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

How can providers be at fault? One can use any communications medium for piracy: The mail system, telephone companies, FTP, the web, carrier pidgeon - the list is virtually endless. Is the postal system at fault for transporting CDs with pirated software?

It's the 9th Circuit

[mind21_98]

We probably shouldn't cheer any victory in the appeals court. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned court ever, and the Supreme Court will probably overturn the decision made here. Of course, they might overturn it in the P2P services' favor if the 9th Circuit rules against them. Either way, we should be prepared.

Winning the war but losing the battle

[erick99]

The RIAA and other like-minded bodies need to find a way to get their message out (music is not free) without alienating their customers.

Technology stays a step ahead of the music industries ability to track down people who are downloading and/or distributing copyrighted content throughout the Internet. So, either find a way to communicate, more effectively, that people who make music have to get paid, or, price the products so that it is just not worth it to download what is quite often not-so-great recordings. Have there been experiments to see if you can sell enough CD's at, say, $10 instead of $18 to make up for the price drop?

Happy Trails,

Erick

Bad Statement

[Mork29]

"The services are profiting to the tune of millions of dollars from music that is written by songwriters who are not getting a dime from the use of their music on these services," said Carey Ramos, a lawyer representing songwriters and music publishers

First of all, people who did nothing and make money off of recording artists is the entire foundation of the RIAA... lets face it. Second of all, don't these people understand a few key things. 1) There are things besides music being traded on these networks 2) Even if people are making money off of it, that has nothing to do with the law. The fact of the matter is that if a copyrighted song is illegally sent over a P2P network, the network has no control over it. It's the user who's breaking the law. Lets face it, the major P2P networks don't advocate breaking the law. They provide a simple medium for trading files over the internet, which is a great thing for young song writers looking to put their name out there, the trading of software that's legal, free, shareware, open, etc... The porn industry has figured out that you can even combat the P2P networks in a positive way. They fill up P2P networks with movie clips and pictures with URLs all over them, so you can say, "Hey! That's some good pr0n! I'm going to that site!" (or so I hear). There are so many wonderful uses for this medium. Why can't these people realize that.

I don't get this argument..

[cK-Gunslinger]

"It's important to protect the Betamax doctrine, so the price of innovation doesn't become a huge lawsuit from the entertainment industry," he said.

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.

Ramos said the two cases can't be compared.

"The Betamax was a product that allowed consumers to make copies," he said. "The defendants operate services which facilitate both unauthorized distribution as well as copying, and that continuing network is fundamentally different from the sale of a consumer electronics product, which was the subject of the Betamax case."

Personally, I don't see the difference at all. VCRs are products that allow you both legally and illegally distribute and copy copyrighted information. Ditto for these P2P networks. VCRs are legal. P2P networks are _____? Doesn't seem to hard to me.

Re:Why not...

[mobiux]

Last time i checked, p2p apps don't contain chemicals to make you want more p2p.

Unless you count porn.

Setting a judicial precedent...

[Black Parrot]

• Used phone to plan crime --> phone companies and phone makers held responsible.
  
• Threatened bank w/ note about fake bomb --> makers of pencil, paper, and luggage held responsible.
  
• Used car in getaway --> automaker, oil company held responsible.
  
• Used gun in shootout w/ police --> gun and ammo maker held responsible. [not far from there now]
  

Of course, if those businesses were "criminal", then the businesses that sell them tools and supplies are also criminal. [apply recursively]

Guns don't kill people....

[southpolesammy]

It's an online rehash of the same old tired argument, only now it has an online twist. The **IA organizations are probably banking on the court to not be able to tell that this is the case.

So last time people -- you can't fault the tool and probably not even the toolmaker because, in essence, the tool is always innocent. If the user of the tool uses it in a way to unlawfully gain from others or to cause damage to others, then there's a user problem that needs correcting.

If the **IA is allowed to get away with this, then you must logically ban every other product on the planet that could possibly be misused, such as cars, guns, steak knives, VCR's, etc, etc, etc.

Nothing to see here people, move along....

Re:Guns don't kill people....

[Richard_at_work]

If the gun manufacturers marketed their products based on the fact that the majority of its users would use them illegally, then I would agree with you. Napster, Kazaa and the rest ARE marketing their products this way, and only after the event saying "but your honor, my application has legal uses also, its just very very rare they are used for those purposes!" Note the 'premium' service Kazaa marketed which gave you access to top quality rips, which the copyright holders werent being recompensed for at all.

Meaningful?

[CelticWhisper]

In their appeal, movie-studio and recording-industry plaintiffs argued that if the court does not reverse Wilson's ruling, "it will gravely threaten any possibility for meaningful copyright protection in the digital era."

I don't think "meaningful" is what they're after. How about "totalitarian" or "draconian" for adjectives, guys? You've far exceeded the realm of just "meaningful." I don't think suing 12-year-olds and senior citizens has a whole lot to do with meaning.

The future of P2P?

[brucmack]

I'm not sure how much the future of P2P hinges on a US court decision... there are people in other countries using P2P too you know.

Even if it became outright illegal to do anything with P2P in the US, it wouldn't mean the end of P2P networks.

Re:9th Circuit

[DAldredge]

Judical activism is OK when it helps your side and wrong with it helps the otherside.

What about power companies?

[utoddl]

"...may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior."

Gee, why not make the power companies responsible for their customers' behavior, too? (I guess there could be an exemption in cases where the power was used to charge a battery that was later used for bad behavior.) What about when people conspire to commit a crime while talking over the phone? Is the phone co. supposed to listen in and report everybody? Or is it just another utility?

Re:9th Circuit

[Artifakt]

How did this get modded informative?
The 9th's rulings stand up much better than average. They are in about 3rd place, possibly 4th, out of all the circuit courts. Considering that an exceptional amount of the 9th's rulings are in new areas, particularly technology, having the supremes agree 75 to 80% of the time for the last 10 years is a very good record.
The district court that covers Arkansas and some nearby states, on the other hand, has been overturned more than half the time, and on rulings that are in obvious disagreement with old, well established law. Given this contrast, I think I'll claim that Rush Limbaugh is a better pro soccer player than Pele, and see if I get modded +17.

Don't laugh

[rsilvergun]

there's plenty of people who want to make gun makers liable. It's been tried before and failed. When you consider your opponent morrally wrong just about any avenue's open to attack.

BTW, where are the software companies in all this? Shouldn't groups like Real, Apple, and even ATI (all of who make technologies that could concievable fall under the headder of 'being used for copyright infringement') be worried too. I don't think these companies are gonna get sued (they can claim plenty of ligit uses) but they might seem some rather unpleasant regulation come out of this.

What I don't get...

[DAldredge]

What I don't get is why this upsets people so much? They don't get this upset when people blow their own heads off on TV and it shows the body, the pool of blood and the hole in the head...

Isn't that WORSE than a breast?