The significant difference between Grokster and Sony is that whereas Sony suggested that a mere potentiality of legitimate use would be enough to save a technology, Grokster looks to the intent of the distributor. Grokster, whatever their denials, clearly intended that their product be used to share copyrighted files (for example, they explicitly offered Top 40 tracks, bound to be copyrighted, and also made it quite clear that they sought to be successors to the then recently deceased Napster).
Future cases then would seem to hinge not on the nature of the technology, but on the business plan behind it. The argument of MGM, that software developers who encourage sharing of copyrighted material are using the property of another as start-up capital, would seem then to have been accepted by the court.
Much of the early comment on the case focussed simply on the headline result – a 9-0 victory for MGM. But if one reads the judgement, it’s clear that there’s very little new law here, merely a win on the facts alone for MGM. This decision won’t stop people from downloading, and it won’t stop them from developing new P2P software. All it will stop is people trying to make money from file sharing. And given that there are plenty of music fans and geeks out there who just want free music and respect for their programming skills respectively, I would suggest that the music industry will today be suffering the same “What now?” feeling they had after the Napster case. They should stop whining, get with the programme (which of course is iTunes) and quit wasting their money by using writs to try and hold back the tide.
11 Comments
Did you see Fergal’s follow-up post when the judgement came out, by the way. It might address some of those points.
http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2005/06/grokster-lose.html
fergal – how the hell is file-sharing “by definition” illegal? do you actually *know* anything about this subject?
I fear that stubborness and a total unwillingness to spend any money means that what is wrong with tuppenceworth’s design will remain the
It might instead stop people advertising their plans to make money from filesharing. I don’t see how the anonymous BitTorrent corp would be liable under this judgement.
Perhaps I should clarify. It will discourage people from trying to make money from *file-sharing*, which is by definition illegal, not from the mere making available of music for download, which, as you suggest is the record industry’s future.
Perhaps it would be more precise to say that the sharing of copywritten material, be it music or other forms, is by definition illegal.
I think Fergal knows a bit about it. At least the legal side of things.
By the way, and completely off topic, I see that Sigla Magazine is your homepage. If you’re involved in its creation fmk, may I congratulate you on a nice job. I envy you your slick site design, somewhat.
perhaps it would be more precise? like, d’oh! *any* sharing of copyrighted material in breach of the copyright agreement is illegal, you don’t even have to watch an episode of law and order to know that. file sharing doesn’t even come in to it. regardless of whether fergal can pull rank with his legal knowledge, what he has said is not just wrong, it’s absurdly wrong and totally misleading – and is all the more damaging coming from a man who claims specialist knowledge in this area. if fergal was to bother reading the supreme court judgement on the grokster issue, i think he’ll find that that court has no real issue with file sharing per se, but rather with the manner in which file sharing services may be sold.
Precisely. The man who invented Bittorrent just threw it out there and took no part in promoting its use, for legal purposes or otherwise. The only people the record industry could chase are sites like Lokitorrent, which can come and go with such speed as to render any court acion against them worse than useless.
re sigla. yes, i do some work on sigla, on the web side. for a decent fee i could tell you what’s wrong with tuppenceworth’s design and advise you on how to make it user friendly
This, of course, is one of the reasons the US Govt (and most law enforcement agencies) are interested in filesharing networks – their anonymity and ability to disappear and reappear quickly, which makes them useful tools for dubious elements in our society (like the intelligence community). Perhaps the submission from the US Government in Grokster was part of an effort to introduce some element of control and traceability into the technology?
you say; “All it will stop is people trying to make money from file sharing.”
somehow i seem to recall something similar being said when napster was closed, and yet look at itunes. do you really think that this judgement is going to impact the bbc’s imp plans?