Grokster Wins Big in Ninth Circuit

The Importance of writes "Grokster has won big in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the decision: [PDF]. It is a very strong decision, basically bringing the Sony-Betamax decision into the modern age. Of course, the decision does make it clear that if Congress wants to change the law, they can (cough*INDUCE Act*cough). Read the whole thing, the actual opinion is only 18 single-column pages. See also, commentary from Jason Schultz, Ernest Miller, Cory Doctorow, and Ed Felten. And don't forget to thank EFF."

Comments

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[DAldredge]

If you check you will find out that they have had the most overturned cases by NUMBER, not by percentage.

They handle more cases that any other circuit court in the nation.

Summary of the case

[Jack Greenbaum]

It would have been useful if this post had mentioned what the case was about. Here is the summary paragraph from the PDF:

This appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment.

Re:Explanation?

[andfarm]

Wikipedia sez: Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (Docket Number: 81-1687), is also known as the Betamax case. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for home use is considered fair use, and that the manufacture of devices, such as Betamax or VCRs, to facilitate that is legal. Arguments were presented on January 18, 1983, and re-presented on October 3, 1983. The decision was announced on January 17, 1984. [source]

the appeals court clearly "got it"

[The_Bagman]

as Felten and others noted on their blogs, the money quote is:

As to the question at hand, the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Software Distributors is clearly dictated by applicable precedent. The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, "The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress." 464 U.S. at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972)).

Re:Explanation?

[The Slashdotted]

Sony v. Universal Studios "The Betamax Case" was a huge legal victory for fair use, stating devices that could be used for piracy, are not illegal, so long as their not universally used for piracy. If it went the other way, the VCR/Betamax/Ipod is as bad as a lockpick or crowbar. http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_de cision.php

Re:WOW

[sangreal66]

That is hardly a catch. Congress always has the ability to change laws, that is the purpose of the Congress.

Re:Explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Betamax Case"(1983-1984) was officially titled Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, was an attempt by Big Media to sue Sony for manufacturing Betamax video tape recorders that could be used for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that:
a. home recording of television programs under certain circumstances is considered "fair use" and is therefore legal, and
b. that the manufacturer(Sony) of devices for this legal use could not be held liable for individuals using their product for illegal uses.(copyright infringement)

(Very abbreviated, but that's the gist.)

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[ewhac]

Cripes, when was the last time the EFF won a case? Reno v. ACLU?

The EFF has been doing fairly well in the DeCSS case -- DVD-CCA vs. Bunner. The court hasn't given them a slam-dunk, but the EFF has been whittling away slowly and surely against the DVD-CCA's baseless claims of trade secret "misappropriation" and "improper" reverse-engineering.

DVD-CCA has claimed they have since obtained a patent on CSS, so they may attempt to enjoin distribution that way, but it looks fairly clear that their trade secret suit is going to ultimately fail. Too bad it took the court four years to figure it out.

Schwab

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[damiangerous]

If you would check (I notice you didn't provide a source) you would see that the 9th leads in overturned cases in both percentage and number. They are just barely the busiest circuit, sure, but the second busiest circuit (5th) with only a 3% smaller caseload is less than one third as likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court Source.

Re:WOW

[studerby]

The court of appeals is not the appropriate venue to decide a point of law of this magnitude,

If you'd bother reading the decision, you would realize that the 9th didn't decide any new points of law at all, they're merely applied existing law, particularly the Betamax decision that the Supreme Court back in the '70s.

The decision is entirely black-letter law, except for applying it to new technologies.

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[Experiment 626]

Because you, being a liberal, like the decision, you automatically assume that conservatives will not. However while some issues draw lines strongly along partisan lines (abortion, death penalty, religious freedom, etc.), others, like copyright law or space exploration have no particular "liberal" or "conservative" stance. People weigh in more or less independently of party affiliation. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, gets it wrong on copyright, but then so did Bill Clinton when he signed the DMCA and Mickey Mouse Act. Likewise someone advocating IP reform might be equally likely to come from either party. One party, as you point out, has been accused of being "in favor of the corporations that support them", the other is known for being cozy with Hollywood, and therefore the MPAA.

So, nice try, but there is nothing anti-conservative about this ruling. In fact, being such a conservative, I applaud the decision. After all, the argument EFF presented here is the same one conservatives have been making for years in the gun debate: this technology has lots of legitimate uses so don't blame the maker because some people are using it to do illegal things.

Non-Commercial, Open Source, Legal Peer To Peer

[jbash]

Thought I would plug these guys. http://furthurnet.org/ Great place, especially if you're into jambands-- but it's all live music from bands with taper-friendly policies. They're very anal about making sure no copyright violating material goes out on the network.

it only gets better...

[Rimbo]

...when you read what's in there:

The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through wellestablished distribution mechanisms.

It's exactly what artists and the EFF have been saying all along.

Re:WOW

[Demonspawn]

That's simple, actually. You cannot agree to a contract that you have not yet seen (or heard, in the case of verbal contracts). That's like me saying that by reading this post you have to pay me a million. I can't do that. I have to offer you the opportunity to agree (verbally or in writing) and then allow you to view the post. For example:

By replying to this post and including the phrase "Demonspawn, I'd like to see another reply." you will agree to pay me $100,000 USD for my reply to your reply.

Now if you reply to this post and include that phrase, you will owe me money for whatever reply I choose to give to you, as I have given you the opportunity to agree to the contract before selling you the goods. That is the crucial point... When I buy a shrink-wrapped copy of Word at Best Buy, I exchange $230 for a box with manuals and software inside. At that point I have agreed to no further conditions on the sale. I am bound only by applicable laws at that point, the biggest of which is copyright.

--Demonspawn