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.

3 of 1,249 comments (clear)

  1. Great by mcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Except Grokster is open source. So let's say I'm using Grokster for some legal purpose, and I repackage and sell it as is legal under the GPL, and promote it myself promoting its legal purposes only. So, because OTHER PEOPLE promoted Grokster for illegal purposes, does that mean I can't distribute Grokster either? Or do they get nailed for promoting Grokster for illegal purposes and I get to keep doing my thing?

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  2. The RIAA/MPAA win the battle... by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But lose the war.

    Even though they won the Grokster decision, the language of the decision, from what I've read..they've actually given up the whole game. Because this makes innovation actually EASIER. It might even defang the DMCA..actually I suspect it will.

    See, all you have to do is market it's non-infringing use. P2P software makers, just link to people hosting public domain and publicly released stuff. That DVD copy software, for example, that was shut down because of this probably would have a pretty damn good defense under this ruling.

    So what is this going to do? It's going to increase the exposure or public domain/CC/whatever material, and do nothing to shut down most of the P2P networks out there.

    It's so ironic it's beyond funny.

  3. Re:Good decision by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You can benefit from the illegal use, you just can't promote the illegal uses.

    If a bank inadvertedly (and after taking reasonable steps to ensure it doesn't happen) launders money, they make money on it. They just can't go encouraging it's use or not taking reasonable steps to ensure that it occurs.

    Unless there's some "interest paid to the state" rule in money laundering law that I am unaware of.