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

WOW

[illuminatedwax]

Holy fucking shit people. There has to be some kind of a catch. Common sense just doesn't *win* like this. There has to be something wrong.

--Stephen

Re:WOW

[Shadowlion]

There has to be some kind of a catch.

The biggest catch is that the decision explicitly notes that Congress has the ability to render the decision moot by passing more restrictive copyright legislation (e.g., the INDUCE act).

So even in the "best case" scenario for the companies, where this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and is affirmed, all Congress has to do is pass the INDUCE act. The decision is overturned, Grokster and company get new lawsuits filed against them, and given how ridiculously broad the INDUCE act is, they will almost certainly lose.

There's your catch.

Re:WOW

[Demonspawn]

EULA's are binding?

Tell ya what. Next time you buy a piece of software, open yer favorite hex editor and change the EULA to: "1. The company who produced this software package will pay 4 billion USD for installing this software package."

Save the binary and install the package. Now, since you didn't agree to said EULA when you purchaced the software package, you are only bound by the laws of copyright. Under those laws, you are allowed to modifiy that which you purchace, as long as you do not distribute. If the software company's no-longer-existing EULA is binding, then so is yours.

Think about that for a second.

--Demonspawn

Re:WOW

[TiggertheMad]

Personally I hope that the RIAA is successful in shutting down music file swapping.

Do you really want that? One view is that the RIAA is just a businuess with a just reason to be attempting to prevent copywrite infringment. Another view is that it is an incredibly corrupt organization that exploits musicians, uses it's monopoly on the marketplace to stifle innovation, crush potential competion, promote cultural homogony, and finally subvert the copywrite laws laid down by the founding father of the USA to maintain control of it's IP for perpetuity.

I hope they die a horrible chapter11 death, so that we can move into the 21st century with a healthy and vibrant music industry. One of the US's largets exports is our culture. When our culture is comprised of nothing but crappy Brittney clones, what do you think is going to happen?

The most overturned appeals court?

[October_30th]

Wasn't 9th the most overturned appeals court?

Re:The most overturned appeals court?

[queequeg1]

Here's pretty good article that discusses the rate at which 9th Circuit decisions are overturned.

9th Circuit article

Based on what little editorial comment is contained in the article, this is not the sort of decision that tends to get the 9th circuit in trouble (to the extent getting overturned equates getting in trouble). Instead, the 9th circuit tends to get in trouble when its judges follow what their conscience tells them rather than what binding precedent dictates. In this case, it appears that the court was following US Supreme Court precedent to the letter.

Hallelujah!

[tokered]

This is amazing!!!! I am jumping up and down in my office, my coworkers think I am crazy!!!

Notice that the judge also spoke in support of the Betamax decision!!! Take that Hatch!!!!

Do you think that this sends a strong statment to Congress? Does this reverse the Napster ruling?

More proof!

[grub]

Netcraft confirms it: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not dying.

In other news

[gorbachev]

Orrin Hatch's campaign contributions just grew by hundredfold.

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.

Don't jump up and down yet...

[Chordonblue]

First of all, the technology in question must be equally available for non-infringing uses. Napster wasn't. It was specifically designed for MP3 trading, and that's the big reason why it got smacked.

Secondly, the court decision clearly leaves the door open for Congress to take up the matter. They feel that the court is not able to make decisions about new tech (what they call 'Art') - that's Congress' job. Think they won't be listening to Big Music's dollars? You bet your ass they will.

Look at the constant extension of copyright in the case of interests like Disney. If Mickey Mouse's copyright gets extended any further they might as well just say, 'Infinity + 1' and be done with it.

Finally, this still won't prevent you from getting sued by the music and movie industries for sharing their material. All this does is postphone the final decision on PtoP. The question is whether or not Congress will limit the technology to non-infringing uses (almost impossible to do), or ban it altogether (more likely - it's easier).

Re:Don't jump up and down yet...

[flossie]

Napster ... technology was equally available for non-infringing uses

The difference between Napster and Grokster, as explained in the Judge's opinion, is that Napster had a centralised index and were therefore in a "supervisory" role with the ability to prevent copyright infringement on a per-file basis. There is no centralised index for Grokster and the authors of the software do not therefore have a supervisory role. The software developers are unable to prevent individual acts of copyright infringement and therefore they do not have a duty to do so.

(The judge explains it better, but he used a lot more words to do it)

Read the PDF, it is surprisingly clearly written and demonstrates that judges do sometimes understand technology!

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:

[unformed]

It's April 1st dude.

Wait, no it's no. WTF? Crap, it's the end of the world, run for your lives!

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[Aneurysm9]

Any true Conservative should have no problem with this decision. This is a perfect example of a party asking a court to create new law and the court refusing. There is binding precedent mandating this outcome and the court properly came to this decision. Now, there still remains the question whether Limbaugh is a true Conservative, but I'll leave that to others to fight over.

Re:Conservatives and the 9th Circuit

[bnenning]

imagine that this will go largely uncommented upon by the conservative community. It'd upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them. They won't like it, but they won't be able to say anything about it.

Or it's possible that conservatives might actually support this ruling. You know, the whole individual freedom and limited government thing. (Which I freely admit the current administration has shown little respect for).

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

Sklyarov mostly won, so that might count.

Now go donate! Most of you haven't...

[geekotourist]

For all the amazing things they do and things they've done they are a small non-profit. Only a small fraction of Slashdot readers are EFF members because if 1/10th of us joined then it should have 80,000 members. It doesn't. That's a lot of free riders, or a lot of people who think that none of these issues will ever affect them.

The EFF is your "freedom to innovate" insurance policy. When you need to argue "Constitutional Rights aren't just the law, they're good ideas. Technological developments aren't just my job, they're a good idea" and you just don't have the time, money or the right words to say it right, the EFF says it for you, and says it very well.

When the MP/RI/XXAA / DMCA takedown letter arrives, 98% of other lawyers or civil rights groups are just going to hear "I work in technobabble, and now I'm being sued for neutrino transducer violations because of warp field coil incompatibility with carnivore but it really is a 4th amendment issue because of eiozh bhpaceog phshzt!..." when you call them up.

When you call the EFF up with your 'intersection of technology with legal rights' legal problem, the EFF will actually understand the issue and will want to help you. And, if they can afford to help you they will- but for that they need money. That means donations ahead of time. That's why you should support the EFF now. $2/week gets you the spiffy hat, or $2.09 /month the nifty bumpersticker AND 1st Amendment Rights carried into Cyberspace. Ask for 'Short' instead of Venti once in a while: you know you aren't supposed to have your caffeine all at once anyways. Or just drink regular coffee with cream and a little splenda. Not only do you save $, you'll lose #s (weight, not octothorpes). Protected rights & a smaller waistline: $2/week, $2/month. Best.Insurance.Ever.

Full Disclosure: I've met many of the EFF's staff, so I know how dedicated they are. Their staff attorneys aren't making much more than paralegals might make at the big corporate law firms. They're the not-profit, and We profit from their existance (are you listening- any encryption exporting companies? this includes You). So donate!

Musicians - notice the enabled business model

[Tired and Emotional]

While as a musician myself I hate to see musicians getting ripped off, in reality, the software in question only makes simpler something that can be done with a fair amount of ease without the software (think ftp and a bulletin board) so if the decision had gone the other way it would have been a legal recognition of luddism.

What musicians need to do is find ways to use these systems to sell product, and from the judgement it seems some are already doing just that.

Does anyone here have personal experience of using the systems in this way that they can share?