Supreme Court Rules against Grokster 1249
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.
site slow - text only version here (Score:2, Informative)
All Is Not Lost (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm Sad... (Score:2, Informative)
RTFR (Score:5, Informative)
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) [supremecourtus.gov] before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story [ap.org]. 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.
Protection of betamax case removed (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12277 [slyck.com]
Re:All Is Not Lost (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The core sentence: (Score:3, Informative)
Pirate all you want with Grokster (while it still exists) and you're not liable! The Supreme Court said so themselves!
More info. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:3, Informative)
It's not final yet (Score:2, Informative)
Before everyone freaks out... (Score:5, Informative)
Bram Cohen is not guilty. Tim Berners-Lee is not guilty. Settle down.
Read the opinion [ap.org].
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.
This seems like a very narrow and careful ruling. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Text of the rulings! (Score:3, Informative)
Text of opinions in PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Concurrence by Justice Ginsberg:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC.pdf [ap.org]
Concurrence by Justice Breyer:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf [ap.org]
Re:Great (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
I know this got a funny moderation, but it's damned insightful. This is a huge part of the ongoing plight of the software developer, manifested in software copyrights and almost unbelievable court rulings. We allow people with almost no understanding of newer technologies to make far-reaching decisions about those technologies. It's almost like allowing HMO lawyers to determine which drugs a person needs and which are cosmetic, without the input of medical doctors.
When you allow a person or group of people to make decisions of law for areas of understanding of which they are both uninformed and uneducated, they are more likely to be taken in by the misinformation campaigns of the larger corporations trying to stifle technological advances that threaten their outdated business models than they are to educate themselves adequately prior to sitting on a case.
This is a good ruling (Score:1, Informative)
Here is the key statement in the ruling:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment
Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free
software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients
use it to download copyrighted works, and each took
active steps to encourage infringement.
Complete Ruling Online Now; Read for Yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
That is a good view, but Thomas Jefferson did not write any of the Federalist Papers. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ [foundingfathers.info]
Thomas Jefferson was not a Federalist; rather, he was a Republican and upon becoming President tried to unite the groups.
The Ruling Text (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Text of the rulings! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Only if it can be demonstrated that the makers of GTA intended the kids who played it to shoot cops. And if that were true, they should be liable.
Is "nuance" any better for you? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Well, (Score:3, Informative)
I'm guessing you didn't read the decision, which isn't all that surprising. They specifically state that the Betamax rule didn't apply at all in this case. The issue in this case was that the companies promoted their software for the purpose of infringing on copyright. Just because the software was capable of legal uses doesn't mean the law turns a blind eye to people who are trying to profit off of massive copyright infingement, which is exactly what Grokster and Streamcast were trying to do. The more people who infringed on copyright, the more ad revenue they got.
The part of the ruling that I take issue with is that they cite advertising their services as a Napster replacement as proof that they were trying to get people to infringe on copyright with their services. That makes no sense. File sharing networks were a relatively new thing at the turn of the century, and many people wouldn't know what they were talking about if they advertised it as such. However, everyone had heard of Napster. Instead of just saying "Use our file sharing network," they could say "Use our file sharing network! It's kind of like Napster!" and people would automatically understand. That's not illegal, that's just smart advertising.
Regardless, Grokster and Streamcast are extemely stupid companies who were trying to get sued for name recognition, and they should have expected to have to pay for it in the end.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
It is a crime -- Solicitation [wikipedia.org].
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need to suspect, and it's a vast majority. There are almost 80,000,000 of us in the US who own a total of roughly 250,000,000-300,000,000 firearms. Compare with the number of crimes committed with firearms, and you can't help but come to the conclusion that the gun control groups' refrain that ordinary people can't be trusted with firearms is a big bunch of bullshit.
3. Even if both or either of the above were untrue, Guns get a special exemption being, as they are, protected under the second amendment. The Constitution doesn't have anything similar when it comes to P2P clients
This is why some of our founders wanted to avoid a "bill of rights" altogether... the idea that rights that were not enumerated would be seen as less valuable, or unprotected, simply because they weren't mentioned. The fear was that the Constitution would morph from what it was--a document outlining the VERY limited powers of a federal government--into a document that listed a VERY limited number of rights of the people. Sadly, this is what it has become.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. RTFA (and the order).
Nowhere do the words "making a piece of software" appear.
They are solely ruling on _distribution_ and distribution with demostrated prior intent at that.
Essentially they _are_ ruling that the promotion is the illegal bit - since without it or other "affirmative steps", the distribution of the device is not (for this reason) illegal.
What interests me is "with the object" and whether this means "with the sole object" - eg. Apple's rip-mix-burn campaign was only one promotion for one aspect of the Mac, so did they distribute "with the object of..." ? I don't think so, but IANAL - I think they are saying that the promotion of infringement has to be your only intent.
Note also that they are quite clear that they are not overturning Sony, and that the non-infringing uses tests still apply, just that they don't get you off the inducement hook:
Liability under our jurisprudence may be predicated on actively encouraging (or inducing) infringement through specific acts (as the Court's opinion develops) or on distributing a product distributees use to infringe copyrights, if the product is not capable of 'substantial' or 'commercially significant' noninfringing uses. Sony, 464 U. S., at 442; see also 3 M. Nimmer & D.Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A][2] (2005). While the two categories overlap, they capture different culpable behavior.
First paragraph says it all (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and not hanks will be neccessary, as we have grown quite accustomed to doing it.
You're damned right! And without a simple thank-you? Those unthankful peasants should be overthrown again! Let's see, which countries have had a US invasion over the last century.
By the way, check the 1992 revolution in LA that was turned down quite brutally, where's their right to revolution?
KOREA:1904-05, Troops, Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA:1906-09, Troops, Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA, 1907, Troops, "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS, l907, Troops, Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA, l908, Troops, Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA, l9l0, Troops, Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS, 1911, Troops, U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA, 1911-41, Naval, troops, Continuous occupation with flare-ups
CUBA, 1912, Troops, U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA, l9l2, Troops, Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS, l9l2, Troops, Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA, 1912-33, Troops, bombing, 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO, l9l3, Naval, Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1914, Naval, Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO, 1914, Troops, Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO, 1914-18, Naval, troops, Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI, 1914-34, Troops, bombing, 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916-24, Troops, 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA, 1917-33, Troops, Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I, 19l7-18, Naval, troops, Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 l, 2 years.
USSR, 1918-22, Naval, troops, Five landings to fight Bolsheviks in effort to
overthrow the fledgling socialist government.
PANAMA, 1918-20, Troops, "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS, l9l9, Troops, Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA, 1920, Troops, 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA, 1920-21, Troops, bombing, Army intervenes against mineworkers.
URKEY, 1922, Troops, Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA, 1922-27, Naval, troops, Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS, 1924-25, Troops, Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA, 1925, Troops, Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA, l928-34, Troops, Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR, l932, Naval, Warships sent during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC, 1932, Troops, Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II, 1941-45, Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear, Hawaii bombed, fought
Japan, Italy and Germany for 4 years; 1st nuclear ar.
DETROIT, l943, Troops, Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN, l946, Nuclear threat, Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA, l946, Nuclear threat, Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY, l947, Nuclear threat, Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE, l947-49, Command operation, U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY, l948, Nuclear threat, Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift
PHILIPPINES, l948-54, Command operation, CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO, 1950, Command operation, Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA, l951-53(-?), Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats, U.S.& South Korea
fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in l950, and against
China in l953. China accuses U.S. of biological warfare. Still have bases.
IRAN, l953, Command operation, CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM, l954, Nuclear threat, French offered bombs to use against siege.
GUATEMALA, l954, Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat, CIA directs exile
invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. companies' lands; bomber
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
It is all about the money, but not all about "drugs." Hemp could still compete with Nylon rope, cotton cloth, and quite a few other big industries.
Re:Maerketing to gangs (Score:2, Informative)
Handguns are quite effective on CXP2 game within 100 yards. And most everything in North America is CXP2. CXP3 game should not be tried with (most) handguns, because most likely you will die. If you can handle the recoil of
Now a 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP handgun is not a hunting handgun. They are defensive guns. They do not drop CXP2 game in their tracks. Thay are meant to stop CXP2 game. Since humans fall in the CXP2 size class, you could say the primary use is to stop a human. That use could be good or bad, depending on the user. If you hunt CXP1 game, these are fine hunting weapons though.
ANY gun, from resivoir pump airguns to high power
If you want to complain about something, ask why a varmint grade bullet is used as the primary weapon of the US. the
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Informative)
The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.
So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.
Hmmm, not quite (Score:4, Informative)
Let me see here. What ammunition specifically are you talking about? Virtually any round fire from a rifle has the power to penetrate a 'bullet-proof' vest. They are only designed to stop handgun bullets. And that's about all they do.
The same ammunition used in common hunting rifles would slice through a kevlar vest like butter. If, perhaps, you are referring to the 5.7x28mm pistol round that was recently making the frenzied media headlines, the steel-cored version can't be sold here.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
They did, in Eldred [findlaw.com]. We lost...
Re:The court could not have ruled otherwise (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, at this time (I'm at work) I can't conduct an exhaustive online search for unbiased data, especially due to the aforementioned excess of chaff in the search. There are, however, a few points which I think are reasonably established for which data shouldn't be as hard to come by:
I recommend reading the timeline at the link above. It seems fairly conservative, lacking quite a number of the more tenuous claims made elsewhere.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Informative)
They actively sought out ex-napster users
In the light most favorable to MGM, a reasonable person could infer that this meant they were intending to market their product for the purposes of copyright infringement, since it is well known (and legally established) the the vast majority of Napster's users were committing copyright infringment.
They left out any way to monitor the people who used the software
This point comes with a footnote:
"Of course, in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor."
They displayed ads in the software
Again, they note that this is not enough by itself, but combined with other evidence it could show their intent to drive ad sales by encouraging infringing uses.
As for the rest of your post, your other quotes are from the part of the decision where they recite the history of the case and has nothing at all to do with the reasoning of their decision. And your assertion that
What the court is saying is that if the Sony case had been set in 2005 and the device in question was a DVR, Sony would have lost. The fact of things being digital is evidently enough to change things from hunkd-dory to bad, bad, bad. "Time-shifting" was what most people used VCR's for (well, there wasn't much in the way of recordable high-quality movies on TV at the time). That term would be "Piracy" in a 2005/DVR case against sony, evidently, solely due to more available content.
is, to be blunt, just plain idiotic if you'd actually read the opinion. The majority and both concurrences cite Sony favorably, and in particular its holding the time-shifting is a legitimate fair use.
LA a "revolution"???? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Wrong Again (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republica
You are wrong, and didn't even bother to look. (Score:3, Informative)
Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.
Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal [pen.org] talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.
While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.