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.
is that it wasn't even close. It was an unanimous ruling.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
So if you write a p2p app and declare it to be content-neutral (i.e "I don't care what you use it for") is that "promoting infringing uses"? What if you put a lot of ads in it saying "Sharing copyrighted material is very, Very Naughty. Please don't do it." Would that get you off the hook?
Brian Smith "Jokers and aces, bruisy and blackfern" - Steve Kilbey, Day of the Dead.
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
I think the Supreme Court has made some really questionable decisions as of late. Precedent and politics rather than Constitutionality and liberty are the driving factors behind everything.
Thomas Jefferson opined in the Federalist Papers that we would not be in danger of losing our guaranteed liberties until all three branches of the government became united in their views and doctrines. It seems that we are moving in that direction, or perhaps we are already there.
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.
Now it is clear, it is legal to distribute a device to infringe copyright.
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. You can make the device, you just aren't allowed to actively benefit from its illegal use.
They key is promotion? So i can create the next great filesharing app so long as on my website I don't promote using it to infringe on copyright? I still think that this ruling can be used against applications like Newsleecher. They do not promote copyright infringement but the vast majority of users are using it for that purpose. Its still a great application for retrieving freeware usenet binaries (trust me, they exist).
This is definitely the important part of this ruling. It's very obvious that Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire et al Truly exist on a userbase of copyright infringement. Not only does it exist and they take no official notice of it, but you can easily argue that the ONLY reason for owning a copy of any of those clients is for the explicit use of copyright infringement. You can say "P2P is noble" but you can't say that Kazaa is. Bittorrent is exactly the opposite, that is, many people do abuse the tool but it's primary use is legitimate. Anyone have usage statistics for legit/illegit uses? I move upwards of 50gb in legal material every month, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
While I was surprised by the 9-0 ruling, the end result isn't that shocking. Essentially, the Court ruled that, if you sell or market a product/service, and the key point of your marketing plan is that the product enables users to do something illegal, you can be held liable for the results of their actions.
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
"The supreme court is becoming more and more pointless every day IMHO"
That might be true if you didn't take a moment to realize that our legislatures are more interested in corporate giveaways and popularity contests, and the American public is so apathetic, it's basically abdicated its responsibility as citizens to instead become consumers and ratings numbers.
In that light, I think the courts are forced to be the adults around here, whether they want to be or not.
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.
And let it get processed by the courts. That seems to be the theme this year with the Justices, not giving any solid guidelines to help out, but allowing the courts to be used time and again for sorting this sort of thing out. Far be it from me to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it does seem reasonable to expect them to let the rest of us know how to make a legal judgement in this sort of thing.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"
So unless you advertise that your service is useful for infringement OR you take steps to intentionally allow for infringement then this ruling doesn't affect you. That won't stop chicken little from posting that an FTP ban is around the corner though.
"The Supremes used to make sense."
I agree, "Baby Love" was a great song.
umop apisdn aw pow f,uop aseald
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to break into your neighbor's house and take his stuff," I'd expect to get sued when it happens.
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to get back into your house or car when you've locked the keys inside," I'd expect protection from lawsuits.
At the same time, this makes the legal environment that technology producers have to deal with more unfriendly. Companies are going to start including DMA when they otherwise might not have, just to make sure they duck lawsuits. Copyright is good. But technology is more important than copyright. I don't like the idea of effectively suppressing technology to protect content producers.
Well, hopefully the chilling effect won't be that huge. Hopefully only egregious cases like Grokster will be seen in the courts. I'm holding my breath.
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.
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.
The reason being is because the justices of the Supreme Court (well some of them) don't judge on the basis of the constitutional text alone. The Constitution says nothing about Fair Use, filesharing, computers, the internet, or p2p. What they decide on is part constitution and part existing culture and similar law in otehr countries. When the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for minors, one of the points made was that no other developed country allowed the death penalty for minors.
Direct contradiction of previous rulings are the norm. In it's history, the Supreme Court first upheld segregation (Seperate but Equal) and then struck it down (Brown vs. Board of Ed). The lawyers for the Brown side of the case didn't argue on the basis of the constitution or whether or not the Equal side of Seperate but Equal was being fulfilled (which it wasn't), but on the basis of the inethicality of segregation.
And finally, this case doesn't direct contradict a previous ruling (unless your referening someting other than the Betamax decision). In Betamax, the Court ruled that a device (or it's creators) isn't liable for copyright infringement if it has substantial noningringing use under the doctrine of Fair Use. It set a litmus test under which, if something is found to be primarily working within Fair Use, it is not liable for a non-Fair Use infringement, but if it is found to be primarily used to infringe copyright, it is liable. Using this litmus test, the Supreme Court found Grokster to fail.
Free MacMini
2. The insane Eminent Domain ruling, making it a cinch for anyone to take anyone else's property, legally. Property rights no longer exist.
This state of affairs has been the case for many years. The ruling was a reaffirmation of the status quo. If you live in a state, city or county that can take land without review, be worried. I live in TN. All eminent domain attempts are subject to a jury trial. It is different from place to place.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
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.
These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user. And, by extension, neither can any other provider of software meeting those conditions. The lower Grokster decision did not explicitly state that Grokster must not promote criminal use, though that seems implicit in "has substantial legal use", when such a condition is nowhere mentioned explicitly. You know, like how "possession of encryption implies criminal intent".
I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.
Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling, Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.
--
make install -not war
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.p df
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
The US legal system has widely varying penalties based entirely on intent. If I aim my car at you and run you down, that's murder or assault. If I swerve to avoid a dog and didn't notice you until I hit you, that's a tragic accident. The end result is largely the same, but my liability is vastly different in the two cases.
Intent is everything.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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.
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
[1] Notably, they cite Linux.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The Iraqi insurgents seem to have no problem giving us fits with basic assault rifles and homemade bombs. Obviously the same could work in the USA if the citizens were behind it.
This is my sig.
The judgment is available here (linked to from here). That includes the summary, Souter's opinion, and the two concurring opinions. Other people have already talked about the important parts of Souter's opinion, but I found the concurrences just as interesting (though less important).
The first concurrence, Ginsburg's (page 30 of the above file), sounded pretty dangerous to me. It lists over a page of evidence for non-infringing uses (pages 34-35) and then immediately dismisses at all without considering it. It doesn't even talk of the dangers to new technologies. But the last paragraph is the scariest. "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM... the Court... should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding. Now, IANAL at all, but that sounds pretty bad.
The second concurrence (page 38), also by three judges, is a lot nicer to me. Pages 42 and 44 have long lists of non-infringing uses including books, Linux software, and things licensed under Creative Commons. It even says that Grokster is protected by the Sony standard. It goes on to talk about how the Sony standard has been a fairly good one. It talks of how both non-infringing uses of Grokster and use of legal programs (like iTunes) will grow. It's still a concurring opinion, but the tone is much more mindful of protecting technology and looking forward to the future, a view that was missing from the first concurrence.
Killing human beings in a very few circumstances, is permitted by law -- most notably self-defense. There have been many cases of criminals wearing body armor.
In the courts opinion, it is reasonable to think that a citizen may have a legitimate usage for armor-piercing bullets. If a ammo manufacturer advertized their bullets as being "cop-killers" then they would be more analogous to the people who distribute a p2p system with the advertizing of "find any song, movie, show etc."
You're arguing about gun-control in general, which is actually counter to what you're (I think) advocating. The same defense that keeps guns legal -- there is in certain circumstances a legal reason to have a gun -- is the same arguement that will protect p2p as a whole. There IS a set of circumstances in which p2p can be legally justified, and thus the whole technology cannot and will not be banned. Just as legally, there ARE restrictions on how guns can be used, there are going to be legal restrictions on how p2p can be used.
Do I agree with this p2p ruling? Not really, I don't personally support the current copyright law, but as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question. We don't value anything more than individual liberty, because life without liberty is an abhorrent concept. We ruled against people promoting breaking the law, and not against p2p. How else COULD we have ruled?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
The ruling had issue with the intent of the developers, not the technology. The development showed an intent to distribute protected media. If Henry Ford first introduced the "car" as a device for running over pedestrians, it wouldn't have been legal either.
This may come to a shock to you, but I don't think that people who make a career of law enforcement are in league with your sister's ex to allow her to be murdered so they can grab a Krispy Kreme. The REAL issue here is that the US is such a litigious society that no matter how well a civil servant performs their duties, someone will look for a payday by filing a law suit. What do they have to loose?
Hey, this might not be great for consumers, but let's be realistic. Why should a company invest in implementing and maintaining any infrastructure when it gives them no competetive advantage? Years ago, banks suied and won a case that allowed them to chanrge a $1.00 - $3.00 service fee for money withdrawn from their ATMs from rival bank card holders. Before that, a Bank may have 1,000 ATMs and had to share access to them, but not the cost of operating them, with their rivals. How is this fair?
So another way to say this is, "Reporters now face possible jail time for protecting sources who are suspected of committing a crime". Hey, this makes sense to me. Since a reporter is neither judge nor jury, why should they be able to decide who is guilty or inocent of wrong doing? That is for our legal system to decide. And since the media wields so much power, (witness Wendy's loosing millions on false claims that someone found a finger in their chili), it makes sense to provide a check and balance to that power.
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
In closing, you sir, are spinning lies. Way to go!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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!"