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.

Comments

I'm Sad...

[GeneralEmergency]

The Supremes used to make sense.

First the stuuuuupid Imminent Domain ruling, now this.

How about this...

[The Ape With No Name]

"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.""

One who distributes a gun with the object of promoting its use to kill ... is liable for the resulting acts of killing by third parties using the gun, regardless of the gun's lawful uses.

Fig Leaf

[JehCt]

So if you

1. create something that is 99% of the time used for illegal purposes
2. knowing this, still distribute it, and
3. continue to promote its use

then you can be held liable for the resulting crimes. The fact that 1% of the users don't break the law does provides no cover. Sounds good to me.

It would be nice if they applied this same logic to the sale of cheap handguns.

Pirates don't D/L music, software engineers do!

[http101]

"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."

That's bullshit... that's like saying Smith and Wesson is liable for my illegal shooting spree (mass ass cap-busting). If we can't hold gun manufacturers liable for drive-bys, hold-ups, and freeway shootings, what then? I'm curious to know what benefits the judge or 'other related parties' are getting in return for this ruling.

*BANG!*

Re:What was interesting

[Mr. Maestro]

I was just using firearms as an example. I realize that doing bodily harm is illegal. But I guess so is distributing copyrighted materials.
I mean you could probably kill someone with a mouse trap. Is the mouse trap company liable?
I could also use a pen and paper to copy the lyrics and musical notes to a song down on a sheet of paper, then photocopy them and give them away to everyone I know. Are the pencil and paper companies liable?
I don't use Grokster. Does it say anywhere on their website or in their EULA that the program can be used to distribute COPYRIGHTED material?

Can this be applied to other things?

[Kushy]

Can a boxcutter manufacturer be held accountiable if some kid kills another kid on the playground because its a weapon? Not something that thousands and thousands of warehouse workers and home owners use everyday? Just because it CAN be used as a weapon?

Well using that logic can someone sue Ford because Fords knows for a fact that some people drive while drunk, yet they still provide cars to anyone as long as they can produce the money?

Logic like this is unreal.

Re:What was interesting

[shotfeel]

Same way they do on everything from carrots to tomatoes. We've got asparagus growing in our garden that I just can't get to stop!

But for some reason, people still pay money for it at the grocery store.