[extropy-chat] P2P software vendors not liable for their user's behaviour

Emlyn emlynoregan at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 23:54:29 UTC 2004


"A federal appeals court in California ruled that Grokster and
StreamCast, maker of the Morpheus P2P software, are not liable for
copyright infringement when users of their software trade songs, music
and other files online. "In essence, the ruling says file-sharing
software is legal. That sets the stage for a potential showdown before
the U.S. Supreme Court and more lobbying for legislative solutions,"
USA Today explained."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18302-2004Aug20.html?referrer%3Demail

It requires a login, so here's the whole thing:


---------------------------------------------
Software Doesn't Break Laws...

By Cynthia L. Webb
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, August 20, 2004; 9:47 AM 

What do file-sharing companies and the National Rifle Association have
in common? A common legal argument, that's what.

The entertainment industry's multi-year legal war to stamp out illegal
online file-sharing was dealt a major blow yesterday when a federal
court said that two major peer-to-peer software firms can't be held
liable for the copyright-infringing activities of their users.

Software doesn't violate copyrights, people do, or so the argument goes... 

A federal appeals court in California ruled that Grokster and
StreamCast, maker of the Morpheus P2P software, are not liable for
copyright infringement when users of their software trade songs, music
and other files online. "In essence, the ruling says file-sharing
software is legal. That sets the stage for a potential showdown before
the U.S. Supreme Court and more lobbying for legislative solutions,"
USA Today explained.
• USA Today: Ruling Sets Back Music Industry's Piracy Battle 
• Ninth Circuit decision: MGM v. Grokster (PDF) 

CNET's News.com said the "ruling means that companies that write and
distribute peer-to-peer software can't be shut down because of the
actions of their customers. It did not say file-trading itself is
legal, and lower courts in the United States have said individual
computer users are breaking the law when they trade copyrighted files
without permission. But the ruling does lift the cloud of potential
liability from defendants Grokster and StreamCast Networks, as well as
from many of their rivals."
• CNET's News.com: Judge's Rule File-Sharing Software Legal 

So does this mean the file-sharers have won once and for all?
According to The Wall Street Journal, not yet: "The ruling yesterday
by three judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco will almost certainly intensify efforts by movie studios,
music companies and songwriters -- the plaintiffs in the case -- to
curb online piracy through other means. Those efforts are expected to
include lobbying for legislation designed to crack down on makers of
file-sharing programs and lawsuits against individuals who share
pirated files over the Internet. Music companies have already been
filing such lawsuits for about a year, though the Hollywood studios
have not yet followed suit." But the ruling certainly changes the
situation on the battlefield, as the Journal concluded: "Though the
fight over online piracy is far from over, the appeals court ruling
seemed to tilt the years-long battle largely in favor of technology
companies."
• The Wall Street Journal: Green Light For Grokster (Subscription required) 

The Los Angeles Times also noted in its coverage that Capitol Hill
will be the next stop for the file-swapping fight: "The battle over
file sharing is now likely to shift to Washington. Congress is
considering a bill that would crack down on the companies making the
software used by millions to copy music, movies and games over the
Internet. What's more, if the entertainment industry appeals the
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court could revisit its landmark Sony
Betamax ruling, which protects from copyright lawsuits products that
have substantial legitimate uses," reporter Jon Healey wrote.

Ironically, the same court helped kill off the Napster file-sharing
service in a previous ruling. The Los Angeles Times explained why the
new generation file-sharing sites were spared: "The same appeals court
came to a different conclusion about Napster in 2001, holding the
pioneering file-sharing service responsible for its users' illegal
activity because its central computers tracked all the songs available
for downloading. But today's file-sharing networks have no central
computers. The companies behind such 'peer to peer' systems cannot
even monitor users, let alone rein them in, Judge Sidney R. Thomas
noted in his opinion for the appeals panel." More on this from the
Associated Press: "The panel noted that the software companies simply
provided software for individual users to share information over the
Internet, regardless of whether that shared information was
copyrighted."

Thursday's ruling was certainly cheered by P2P site Kazaa, which will
use the decision to its advantage. "The court found that the
file-sharing networks have legitimate uses, allowing the band Wilco,
for instance, to distribute online an album its record label declined
to release. The ruling also will affect the entertainment industry's
pending case in Los Angeles federal court against Sharman Networks,
owner of Kazaa, the world's largest file-sharing network," the San
Jose Mercury News reported.

Expect a version of this logic to be used going forward. BBC News
Online quoted Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
who represented StreamCast in the case. Lohmann: "The same principle
that people who make crowbars are not responsible for the robberies
that may be committed with those crowbars." Crow bars don't kill
people, people kill people...

No surprise here: the Recording Industry Association of America
doesn't like the ruling. The New York Times picked up on a statement
by RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol, who said the ruling "does not absolve
these businesses from their responsibility as corporate citizens to
address the rampant illegal use of their networks." Indeed, the RIAA
and movie industry can still aim their ammo at individual
file-sharers. The ruling "says the makers of the software can't be
liable," Art Brodsky, communications director of public interest group
Public Knowledge, told the Times. "It doesn't say anything about the
individual users."
-------------------------------

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com   * blogs * music * software *



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list