Slashdot Mirror
MGM v. Grokster Date Set
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court has set March 29th as the date for oral arguments to begin in the Grokster trial. As we all know the final ruling will have ramifications on the tech world well beyond P2P. A decision is expected by end of July."
doesn't this case have the same problem as the s/w patents case?
IE, a s/w program is simply an algorithm. If you invent an algorithm and someone else uses that for something 'bad', then what has that got to do with you?
Think of how many mathematical formulae were used to invent the atom bomb. Is/are the invertor/s of those formulae somehow responsible?
I love America and everything, but he who has the deeper pockets ultimately wins.
"I doubt that the Justices will find the Betamax ruling precedent for a pro-Grokster ruling."
How could they not? In each case, the offending person is using a piece of technology to distribute copyrighted materials to which they have no right to distribute.
1) Two VCRs sitting next to each other, one set to record and the other to play, connected via RF cables.
2) One VCR attached to a wireless RF video distribution device set to play, ten VCRs attached to RF receivers set to record.
3) One computer playing a song via it's audio out jack, one computer recording via the audio in jack.
4) One computer hosting an audio file via a network, 100,000 computers receiving that file.
In each case, the mechanism of distribution changes, but the core principle stays the same. The Betamax case found the creators of the distribution mechanism not liable for the unlawful use (copying copyrighted materials without permission) of it's users.
Of course, there are huge differences. The original case somewhat hinged on the right of Fair Use -- a right the **AA has been trying to destroy at every turn. They believe the only "fair" use is when you pay them for each playback of the content.
In addition, there was no such thing as the DMCA. We can only hope that if / when they try to bring up the DMCA as an argument, the court finally gets a whack at it and declares it unconstitutional (or at least inconsistent with pre-existing fair use right declarations).
They'll give up based on what the Supreme Court says.
No, they won't.
Funny... when i read "in favor of Sony" up there i immediately interpreted it as "against VTRs".
The public perception of Sony (well, at least my perception of Sony) seems to have changed a bit over the last years.
Free as in mason.
The only problem is that the 9th Circuit is the most-reversed circuit there is.
Is that by number of cases reversed, or is it by percentage of cases reversed? Some circuits just hear more appellate cases than other circuits. For example, if you have 100 cases and 17 reversed in one circuit, isn't that better than 10 cases and 4 reversed in another circuit?
Betamax was a pure hardware device, a simple video recorder. It was not a program library, a catalog, or a distribution system. Dangerous to assume that the court will regard the Betamax decision as controlling.
God help humanity if Groakster loses. They are not just fighting for rights, they are fighting for the future of communication itself.
The Betamax ruling was that the maker of a product - and the court repeatedly used the word product - which was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses" was not liable for any infringment which may or may not be commited by people who use that product.
I'd be absolutely facinated to hear any logic how and why a different liability standard would exist between "software products" and "hardware products".
The only reasons I can see for this new case to go any differently would be emotional bias (if they find P2P a less sympathetic defendant than VCRs) or simply because there are different judges not and they want to write different law. But in either case I don't see how they could reasonably do that without effectively throwing VCRs back into contributory infringment for the infringment committed with them. But who knows? Maybe we'll wind up with an "infringment tax" slapped on all new VCRs.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Making companies liable for illegal actions consciously performed by end users of their products is an extremely bad precedent to set. If I play my music too loudly and am fined for breaking city ordinance, I don't think MGM wants to pay the fine because it's the soundtrack to a movie they own. Basically, even if there is a legitimate justification for shutting down p2p, this is a bad way to go about it.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Well, the big difference I see is that there was no distribution in the Sony case. It allowed someone to make a copy, that's all. Grokster does not allow you to make a copy, it allows you to distribute copies to a theoretically unlimited amount of people. You're computer allows you to make a copy of a DVD (and I believe the jury is still out whether making a copy for yourself is legal). Grokster allows you to distribute that copy to other people.
Plus, even if the Sony case had covered distribution, the scale is different which makes the cases different. Making a degrading copy that can be given to one person is different than making a perfect copy that can be given to an unlimited amount of people. Scale does make a difference in the law, which is why stealing 5 dollars is a different crime than stealing 5 million dollars.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"