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.
What was interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:3, Interesting)
Great (Score:5, Interesting)
So (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Unfortuantly, the only way to know is to be sued (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what were the intentions behind home video recorders? Presumably the intention was to tape your own films or something...
The RIAA/MPAA win the battle... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How are they determining intent? What's the test? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, I was absolutely amazed how long the original Napster was able to operate. The intent of the product was clearly to promote copyright violation, and to profit from them. The whole "pirate" theme from their logo on seemed like they were just begging to be prosecuted.
On the gripping hand, Grokster doesn't seem to be taking anything like the same kind of approach, so I'd like to see the basis of the decision that Grokster was distributing "a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright". I guess I'll have to wait until it's posted and/or transcribed.
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if you look in the FAQ, it points to two places for content to download:
http://bt.etree.org/ [etree.org] and http://smiler.no-ip.org/BT/BTlinks.php [no-ip.org]
The first one looks to be bootlegs of bands that allow bootlegging. The second, is a more of an all-things-BT clearninghouse, with links to more questionable sites among legit items.
So, how much infringing encouragement does BT have? What if I made my own client and billed it as the best video store next to Blockbuster? Is just that client liable, or is BT as a whole now advertising infringing uses?
I have a feeling that this won't be the last that SCOTUS will hear of this case.
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:3, Interesting)
So where does this leave Freenet, anti-censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole premise of why use freenet seems to be that the content you are communicating is illegal somewhere. The user makes the choice which country's laws he wants to circumvent.
It is illegal to publish, in the USA, for example, the purely-political works of an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner, which ban is just as unjustified as Chinese or Iranian censorships, and things keep getting worse here.
Censorship is government-sanctioned far more often than government-opposed. Freenent and so on exist to avoid censorship even if the uses happen to be legal in some countries. Censorship is also increasingly a function of DMCA, etc. Thus it is criminal to write software which promotes free speech?
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Interesting)
If a bank inadvertedly (and after taking reasonable steps to ensure it doesn't happen) launders money, they make money on it. They just can't go encouraging it's use or not taking reasonable steps to ensure that it occurs.
Unless there's some "interest paid to the state" rule in money laundering law that I am unaware of.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Small Steps
First make p2p's, that specifically advertise their copyright infringement policies, illegal.
Second take it one step further to p2p's that do not filter copyright infringement content are shut down
Third step force reporting on people who circumvent the filtering software
Forth step force reporting of all p2p users
Fifth step ban all p2p programs
Maybe not in this order, maybe not even complete, but small steps. The ruling the supreme court's made is totally fine with me - well because I agree copyright infringement is wrong. I just get worried about the next steps.
So a toast to my first tinfoil hat.
Re:Unanimous Disaster (Score:3, Interesting)
As for supporting performing artists, I believe that strong enforcement of copyright laws will actually damage artistic careers more than support them, much as a strict union shop will tend to limit job growth and career advancement rather than enhance them. By making it more difficult and expensive for a library to provide music recordings and videos, and for hotels, restaurants and clubs to play music over their ceiling speakers, we limit the exposure of performing artists.
Free and unsanctioned downloads of music and movies are an abuse of the superb distribution system that the internet has become, but the alternative of locking these items up so tightly with onerous legal restrictions will hamper distribution.
For example, the "buzz" that is generated by a hit comes not from people flocking to record stores and purchasing the single, but from hearing it on the radio, hearing it on a friend's stereo, and trading recordings. Cutting off this informal distribution system will damage the music industry something awful.
Re:The courts have faield the peopel again! (Score:3, Interesting)
This won't be the end of the internet. This won't even be the end of P2P. It might be the end of companies like Grokster. And I don't think that'll significantly distrupt the lives of most people. Free software will fill in the voids, and life will go on.
So are web browers illegal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Doesn't this make Web Browsers illegal now? - since I can download media from through them, and the P2P programs are no different than a glorified web browser with a different interface.
Stupid idiots...I can't believe that the Supreme Court could be bought...there is not other explanation for this stupidity.
Directors Cut (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [slashdot.org], 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.
Note the reference to objective - would XEROX pass (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly XEROX purpose in building a copier was so that people can make legitimate copies of documents.
In the digital world this also can be the objective of file sharing. Please have a look at www.irtc.org
We are now at the point where individuals and groups can create their own copyrighted material. IE. We don't need hollywood or the RIAA. A for instance is the Greatful Dead would gladly have glombed on to a system that file shares.
So - I do not see this ruling as being much of a problem.
I
Not poor precedent at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, because it's not illegal to do bodily harm. Self-defense may require it. Police and security personnel, and the municipalities that procure them their weapons, could be properly lured by advertisements that promised "bodily harm". But try this out:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to COMMIT A CRIME
Make sense now? Once you read it that way, it makes a lot more sense. If I sell you something by saying it will let you break the law, then I can't fall back on its lawful uses once you use it the way I said you should.
Expect an impact on the makers of "radar" detectors.
From the rulings: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony is often interpreted as:"Substantial non-infringing uses are an automatic off the hook. for contributory infringement."
But what it really should be is: "The existence of non-infringing uses is just one piece of evidence you can use to try to determine whether a 'conspiracy to commit copyright infringement' occured. But you can also look at whether the company intended, from day one, to be a tool for infringment.
A quote from Souter's opinion:
"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."
---
So, I _think_ we're okay. If it really was designed from day one to be a content-neutral system like http or ftp, then no problem. But if you actively marketed to copyright infringers, you can't just use Sony as a "get out of jail free" card.
I'd have prefered a "Yay free speech, down with copyright" opinion myself, but it's not as bad as it could be.
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I'm not arguing that the gun situation isn't inherently different from the bittorent situation which isn't inherently different from the Grokster situation. But to say that the gun manufacturers aren't marketing to gangs or other ne'er-do-wells may not be entirely accurate. It may not be overt, but it's there, like it is in tobacco and alcohol marketing. (This steps dangerously close to the argument that we all need to be less influenced by advertising, but that's obviously an argument for another group session.)
Anyhow, I just get worried when the court or Congress get involved in anything having to do with technology - I just don't trust them to get it right. This time seems fairly right to me, though. The hard part will be preventing abuse or oversimplification of the ruling in the future by lawmakers, judges, or hungry attorneys for the over-zealous defenders of intellectual property. And there will always be Grokster-like products that will now simply hire marketing firms to push to the edge of legal marketing language and further muddy the waters.
Re:selling a sporty car = speeding (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this decision the end of the sports car?
Is this really so surprising? (Score:2, Interesting)
In my opinion, this ruling might even be beneficial to stir up discussion about how the world of file-sharing will be addressed in the future. It's equally silly to think that they can just keep banning things forever and a well-defined separation line might give a boost to formalizing the legality of certain file-types and encouraging the widespread acknowledgement and proliferation of systems such as GPL.
Of course you won't be able to watch movies for free while someone else is paying for them, but maybe you'll be able to protect the things you can do for free in a much more solid, institutionalized way. Use your legal system wisely. It's there to help you, not as some dark, mindlessly antagonic villain.
Re:The "intent" test is troublesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Intent is everything.
Re:The "intent" test is troublesome (Score:1, Interesting)
My future prediction... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the very near future, you'll see companies begin to develop and push P2P as a way for people to publish/distribute their own content. The whole podcasting thing is what will make this happen. And with people starting to push into the video realm (Systm, etc) , this will become the defense of the next P2P battle.
Think about it: Somebody creates a client that can grab RSS, publish RSS, share content via BitTorrent/DHT, get content via same, play video/audio/everything under the sun, and integrates into MythTV just for good measure.
The primary, stated, purpose of such a thing is to let people download the free content online and watch it on their spiffy PVR box.
The actual primary use would be to download TV shows and movies and such from other users of the software, using the BitTorrent capabilities inherent in the software (although video-blog type RSS feeds would be in second or third place).
In any case, the revolution will be podcasted.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore - your post makes no sense - in the first sentence you laud the ruling as blatently criminal, and then go on to criticize those who voted against it. Usually when liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth, they reserve it for at least a seperate paragraph - not the next sentence.
I'm amazed by the /. analysis (Score:2, Interesting)
Three more good points on that:
- The SCOTUS specifically declined to say that the 10% of legit use was insufficient to prove a lack of legitimate usage.
- Lower courts are prohibited from determining that software creators are liable SOLELY based on the design of the software. I think this is good for software that includes IP blockers. This ruling says it only becomes illegal when you name it "RIAA blocker".
- Footnote 12 - "a court would be unable to find...liability merely based on a failure to take...steps to prevent infringement [by end users]." Meaning P2P devs can't get sued because they refuse to put in "features" to detect illegal downloads.
All in all, not too bad. Could've been much worse. I'm guessing that some of the concurring opinions might be worse, but I can live with that.
Re:Directors Cut (Score:2, Interesting)
The liberals ruled that it fell under federal law and was therefore illegal.
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that those same Founding Fathers also seemed to think it essential to a democracy that free speech/free press not be infringed. Remember that Copyright Law, in it's essence, if an infringment on the free press insofar as it grants an exclusive right of publication to a single party.
Ian Clarke Comment (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm, what about MS Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
That would seem to qualify.
The SCOTUS decision is going to open a huge can of worms. Many ISPs have, for years, sold their broadband service as something that helps you download music at blazing speeds (long before legal services were available) and they permit you to download all sorts of images and content as well as upload content without any sorts of release forms, etc.
If the media companies wanted to, they've got the ammunition now to simply block public access (in the US) to the Internet until a new technology could be developed to limit data exchange to something they approve of.
Can't believe I agree with this ruling! (Score:4, Interesting)
If I sell a gun and all my ads say, "Kids, you can kill your parents tonight with our new Blasto 350", I am encouraging murder. "Kids download all your favorite songs for free with Grokster." I am encouraging copyright infringement, (according to current copyright interpretation.)
That is clearly illegal. (MPAA/RIAA and the Grokster-ilk are both equivalent whores in my book, since they are all trying to make money off of someone elses sweat.)
You could also see how programs that might preload searches of "Currently Showing Hollywood films", are just begging you to download copyrighted material.
On the other hand, a program like eMule, Freenet, etc. is clearly very generic and doesn't care what you download or share, and makes no money off of it.
I see nothing in this that effects Bittorrent, eMule, or the other non-profit file sharing apps at all.
I thought for sure when I saw they had ruled against Grokster that the reading of their ruling would break my heart, yet instead, I feel all the bad people are hurt by this, and the good are unharmed. (Citizens can continue to download and share what they wish to, MPAA/RIAA will continue in the precipitous downfall, and Grokster-leaches will go out of business.)
Stream Ripping? (Score:2, Interesting)
Non-US resident (Score:2, Interesting)
seriously - what are the potential implications for those not subject to the US supreme court? will this ruling stifle development in the US such that us brits have fewer apps to choose from? will the EU follow suit? what if i develop grokster-like products and market them to the US - will they then call in the airstrikes? etc etc.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
You here the same conspiracy theory everytime, about hemp paper being a "danger" to pulp paper.
I have two major problems with this. First off, nobody who pushes this theory ever bothers to provide any proof. What serious proof has anyone in this thread offered? "Reefer Madness: The Musical" doesn't count kiddies. You just hear the same accusation over and over until everyone just assumes it's true. I say bah to that.
The second problem is that hemp paper had been around for a long frickin' time before the 1930s. Why in the world would it _suddenly_ become a danger to pulp? Pulp manufacturers had been competing succesfully for a long time. Hemp is still produced around the world, has it displaced pulp newsprint? Nope.
On a side issue, people try to argue that "big business" wouldn't like to legalize it because "everyone would just grow there own!". I say HAH to that. People don't even bother to make their own jello anymore! Making your own beer is easy, but most people don't bother. In the end most people would buy marijuana at the store if they could, just like they buy everything else. Even if 50% of the weed smoked was home grown (a fantastic over-estimation) there would still be a huge market for the stuff.
PS: I favor legalization, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into the paranioa.
Re:Read the concurring opinions (Score:5, Interesting)
The unanimous court opinion was based on the first (active inducement) analysis. That is much less devastating (to P2P, and indeed to the internet as we know it) than a holding based on the second theory (no substantial noninfringing use) would have been.
The concurring opinions were the Ginsburg opinion, to the effect of "who are you kidding, of course this technology has no substantial noninfringing use", and the Breyer concurrence, which says "looks like it may" and that the Ginsburg approach would require trashing the Sony decision.
So the real action, as the OP states, is in the concurring opinions, as to which the vote was 3-3. The "swing votes" here -- the guys who stayed on the sidelines of the concurring opinion debate -- are none other than Scalia, Thomas and the author of the lead opinion, Souter. Better put them in your goodnight prayers.
My guess is that the "swingers" are hoping that this decision will put this issue enough to rest and quell the present ferment just enough that they won't have to revisit it any time soon. I think there is a lot of unease in that quarter about the implications of in effect outlawing an entire technology, and worse, with no clear definition that would differentiate that from virtually any network transaction involving one machine serving content to another. I hope they are right, and will be able to leave this area alone for a while. It takes four votes to accept a case for review.
Close call, folks.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Marijuana DOES threaten a major U.S. industry: the tobacco industry, which by the way is much older than William Randolph Hearst. Older than the United States, in fact. I would guess (although I'm not an expert) that Big Tobacco has a very well established infrastructure that would have to be scrapped in order to truly capitalize on hemp.
Otherwise they think they might be run out of business while trying to move to the new market. And it's easy to see why. The new product has tons of profitable derivatives (rope, cloth, etc), it provides a more powerful effect in a smaller dose, and it has fewer of those nasty tobacco side effects (like say, cancer). Plus it's much easier to grow, so the chance of a small grower becoming a major industry player overnight are pretty good. In the meantime Big Tobacco has to scratch some of their existing infrastructure and rebuild part of their business from the ground up. In this case it's much, much cheaper to make the competing product illegal.
Of course, I'm no expert, but this is my educated guess at who's really behind the criminalization of marijuana. Take it as you will.
Page 22, footnote 12 (Score:1, Interesting)
Fabricated quote (Score:4, Interesting)
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
The words, "using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses" are not part of the ruling, and as many others have pointed out here, it's actually fairly misleading. I won't speculate on Ms. Crawford's motivations for the misquote, other than that she's probably just a confused journalist who thinks it's OK to bend ethical rules to get a story out.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
But my point is that it's not all about business. There's some insane prejudice involved also.
Well I guess it's not all about business.... it's all about money.
See, the current "war on drugs" creates a huge Seizure Business [libertarianworld.com] for the U.S. Government. If they legalized MJ, they wouldn't be able to steal property, money, etc. from the subjects of the USA anymore...
Not technically a defeat... (Score:3, Interesting)
So doesn't this mean that the Supreme Court has simply ordered the lower court to try the case in light of their new ruling?