Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules against Grokster
furry_wookie writes "A few minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unaniumously against Grokster today. This ruling means that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the Internet. More info about the case here." That's not an entirely accurate statement -- what The Supremes said is that "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses." The promotion is the key part of that statement.
Update: 06/27 18:00 GMT by T : Reader SilentBob4 points out this interview with EFF attorney Wendy Seltzer on the decision.
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.
It's actually not a response. That came out several days ago. I'd been expecting it on Slashdot but it never came.
Direct away from face when opening.
If you want to read more info about this case, the EFF has a large amount of information about it on their website.. There are copies of documents, filings, articles, press conference audio etc.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Bram Cohen is not guilty. Tim Berners-Lee is not guilty. Settle down.
Read the opinion.
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.
In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.
MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.
The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.
But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
Opinion by Justice Souter: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZO.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Ginsberg:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Breyer:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.p df
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Bravo. What is it with our culture now? Making mature, considered decisions about something, decisions that require other parties to consider them outside the world of newsbites and so on, is now considered a sign of weakness, is it?!?
A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.
The Supreme Court, for all the current right-wing majority's nascent authoritarian learnings, is not in the business of sweeping decisions that reach far beyond the cases brought before them. Their 10 Commandments decision's coming up, and they're not going to be extending it to cover "In God We Trust" and evolution in schools just because they want to take a stand. There's a process, and it's not weak or waffly to follow it.
How mature are we, anyway?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Unless, of course, encouraging others to commit a crime is itself a crime.
It is a crime -- Solicitation.
they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
... one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement,...
Wrong. RTFA (and the order).
Nowhere do the words "making a piece of software" appear.
They are solely ruling on _distribution_ and distribution with demostrated prior intent at that.
Essentially they _are_ ruling that the promotion is the illegal bit - since without it or other "affirmative steps", the distribution of the device is not (for this reason) illegal.
What interests me is "with the object" and whether this means "with the sole object" - eg. Apple's rip-mix-burn campaign was only one promotion for one aspect of the Mac, so did they distribute "with the object of..." ? I don't think so, but IANAL - I think they are saying that the promotion of infringement has to be your only intent.
Note also that they are quite clear that they are not overturning Sony, and that the non-infringing uses tests still apply, just that they don't get you off the inducement hook:
Liability under our jurisprudence may be predicated on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts (as the Court's opinion develops) or on distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses. Sony, 464 U. S., at 442; see also 3 M. Nimmer & D.Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A][2] (2005). While the two categories overlap, they capture different culpable behavior.
Look into the history of cannibus. It was outlawed because of its use in rope-making, not because of the drug use. Why else would ANY form of hemp (even the non-smokable variety) be illegal in the USA. The studies that got written to point out the evils of pot were funded by DuPont right after they created Nylon. They wanted to compete with hemp rope, and used the fact that some (very few, at that time) people smoked one variety of it to get high.
It is all about the money, but not all about "drugs." Hemp could still compete with Nylon rope, cotton cloth, and quite a few other big industries.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.
So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.
Umm dude, speaking as one of the people who "brutally" put down the revolution (D Co, 1/149 Armor, CA ARNG), it was nothing of the sort. It was a bunch of people out to destroy and steal what they could while the police were overwhelmed. They had no political agenda beyond "I want that TV" or "I want to burn down that shop". Look at some of the TV interviews with looters during the riots- they're quite honest about what they were doing.
As far as being brutally put down, my unit despite being in one of the absolute worst areas of LA (Rampart) did not fire a shot, and indeed never used physical force beyond rounding up some illegal immigrants. (INS had a field day) The rioters in our area were in far more danger from the Korean storeowners who were armed to the teeth and not afraid to shoot back. There were a few bad instances (one about two blocks from my HQ) but the Guard had all the free food we could eat- people were stopping us on the streets to thank us for being there.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"