Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court ponders Grokster case (Justices ask if restricting file sharing could stifle innovation)
CNN ^ | March 29, 2005

Posted on 03/29/2005 1:06:09 PM PST by nickcarraway

Supreme Court justices questioned Tuesday whether the recording industry's attempts to shut down online file-sharing networks would deter inventors from developing new products like Apple's iPod music player.

But the justices also suggested that peer-to-peer networks could be held accountable for copyright infringement because they attracted users by telling them that they could copy music and movies for free.

Record labels and movie studios have sued to shut down peer-to-peer software makers like Grokster and Morpheus, arguing that the millions of songs and movies copied each day over these networks have cut into sales.

Lower courts have ruled that Grokster and Morpheus can't be held responsible for the activities of their users because, like a videocassette recorder, their software can be used for legitimate as well as law-breaking purposes.

The Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to that line of reasoning. Justice Steven Breyer noted that other inventions, from the movable-type printing press to the iPod digital-music player, could be used to illegally copy protected works but have proven beneficial to society.

If the court found Grokster liable for the infringing practices of its users, it could have a chilling effect on other inventors, Breyer and several other justices said.

"There's never evidence at the time when the guy's sitting in his garage figuring out how to invent the iPod," said Justice David Souter in open court Tuesday.

Zero in on a question

But the court also zeroed in on a question that has figured less prominently in previous cases: Whether Grokster and its ilk should be held liable for encouraging, or "inducing," widespread unauthorized copying.

Grokster attorney Richard Taranto argued in court that the network should be judged by its current behavior, not its actions several years ago when it was initially trying to attract users.

(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: filesharing; intellectualproperty; peertopeer; scotus; supremecourt; technology

1 posted on 03/29/2005 1:06:12 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Supreme Court justices questioned Tuesday whether the recording industry's attempts to shut down online file-sharing networks would deter inventors from developing new products like Apple's iPod music player.

DUH!!!


2 posted on 03/29/2005 1:11:57 PM PST by Cat loving Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How is it OK to record music and movies that are broadcast over the airwaves, but not OK to record them through wires? I can record all the songs i want off the radio and make cds of them.


3 posted on 03/29/2005 1:13:52 PM PST by Ron in Acreage (Kerry is (no longer) a threat to national security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Since they took the case I'm betting the USSC may be looking to overturn the lower courts. Although file-sharing is illegal P2P software is not so this case is almost like charging gun sellers for the crimes of the owners. The Court should leave this question to Congress.


4 posted on 03/29/2005 1:16:03 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

The Court should leave this question to Congress.

You are kidding right? Congress has no authority to make laws. We are now ruled by the courts so we need to wait for them to tell we the enlightened what will be. Hopefully they will look at world opinion and international law before making this decision.


5 posted on 03/29/2005 1:21:15 PM PST by Cat loving Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cat loving Texan

It is unbelievable the legislating coming from the bench and I strongly suspect that's where this Court is going too. One of these days when we get some politicians with guts it's coming to an end.


6 posted on 03/29/2005 1:27:53 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

Don't you remember the "home taping is killing music" campaign in the 80s. If we make our own copies, how is Don Henley going to fly a gulfstream to his enviro benefit shows? He'll starve!!!


7 posted on 03/29/2005 2:12:28 PM PST by Huck (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Although file-sharing is illegal P2P software is not so this case is almost like charging gun sellers for the crimes of the owners.

File sharing is NOT illegal. Sharing copyrighted materials over a P2P network is. There is a lot of free software available over file-sharing P2P networks which is NOT illegal.
8 posted on 03/31/2005 11:21:18 AM PST by Bulwark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bulwark

Yes you're correct though I meant to imply copyrighted material where the holder hasn't authorized it.


9 posted on 03/31/2005 11:26:51 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

I think the theory is that the quality of over-the-air music is not as great as that on CDs, so people wouldn't be as interested in duplicating it--of course, most on-line file sharing is sub-cd quality....

Also, it's not on-demand. I think the record industry figures that you're not going to sit by the stereo all day with your finger on the record button waiting for that song that you like.


10 posted on 03/31/2005 11:36:15 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

am looking at some older articles trying to see how the court might rule....

I definitely have this concern, but most articles indicate the line of questioning seemed to be more against the entertainment companies than the p2p companies.

But, that is not always a good judge. They still may rule against the p2p companies, especially since one lower court was, you guessed it, the 9th.

That said, I sure hope they uphold their Betamax decision. If they do not, well, p2p won't die. It will just move overseas.

But, it will have a horribly stifling effect on internet technology and effectively make illegal VCR's etc.

It would be bad. I am worried.

I hope they make their decision tomorrow....don't want to worry about this one anymore.


11 posted on 06/06/2005 12:47:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
That said, I sure hope they uphold their Betamax decision.

Same here.

12 posted on 06/06/2005 4:34:15 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson