MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable

Briefs defending Grokster's right to exist were filed yesterday in MGM v. Grokster, from Intel, Creative Commons [PDF], and many others. Among them, 17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based." Pointedly, the EFF compares this case's arguments to those made over 20 years ago in the Betamax case, which established the public's right to use video-copying technology, because of its "substantial non-infringing uses," even though many used videotape to infringe copyright. We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software: the Supreme Court takes this up on March 29th.

Comments

Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall

[DAldredge]

But, judging from your low /. UID, you are a useless hippy who hates America and Jesus.

Re:In order to win this

[Ironsides]

No no... I mean, what's being distributed in higher volume than copyrighted material?

Porn

Re:No, it has to do with lack of expertise

[geoffspear]

On the other hand, David Boies seems to be pretty good at failing miserably in big cases (US v. Microsoft, Bush v. Gore, and now SCO v. everyone), so I'm not sure he's the best person to be taking legal advice from.

If you want advice on how to get paid lots of money without showing results, though, he's your guy.