Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Rules against Grokster

Posted by Hemos on from the toll-the-bells dept.

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.

7 of 1,249 comments (clear)

  1. RTFR by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:All Is Not Lost by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. More info. by furry_wookie · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Text of opinions in PDF by Kaa · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Re:What was interesting by ldanna · · Score: 5, Informative
    In other words, the SCt weaseled out of a definitive ruling on the P2P question. They're good at weaseling out of such decisions these days - quite a shame. Maybe the next P2P company targeted by the AAs will push the Court to a clear ruling... maybe not then, either.
    It has always been their policy to issue as narrowly worded a decision as can decide the case before them. It's not "theese days", it's the full history of the court.
  6. Re:What was interesting by TheoMurpse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless, of course, encouraging others to commit a crime is itself a crime.

    It is a crime -- Solicitation.

  7. Re:What was interesting by jdbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.