US Supreme Court overrides Sony/Betamax Precedent

[mg262]

"We hold 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."

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm

The case was about p2p networks, but if I read it correctly the ruling has wider consequences for the community...

Edit: Oops -- There's already something on this on the front page - sorry!

Edit: A slightly more positive outlook can be found here:
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050627.gtkapicajun27/BNStory/Technology/

Particularly the following phrase which the above link omitted: "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" need to be present in order for someone to be liable. So Grokster and StreamCast haven't actually been found liable yet -- the case has been re-referred to the lower courts to find whether or not there is the "clear expression, etc." that would make them liable.

[Doobie]

The bit about "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" at first blush makes the ruling sound almost reasonable. If the P2P company isn't trying to get people to use their software for copyright violations, they are not guilty of wrongdoing. But, then look what Souter's three examples of Grokser and Streamcast taking affirmative steps to foster infringment:

1) They positioned themselves as a Napster replacement.
2) They didn't [try to] block copyrighted material.
3) They made money.

Uh, 1) Kazaa might have been compared to Napster in the early days. But, as I recall, Kazaa also crippled MP3 transfers (the 128kb limit) which seems me an effort to not position Kazaa as a Napster replacement for music copyright violations.

2) Not accomplishing the impossible goal of blocking copyright violations now counts as affirmative steps to foster copyright violations?

3) Making money now counts as affirmative steps to foster copyright violations?

[shevegen]

I believe the main problem is with "making money".
That can be viewed as on purpose in the courts no matter whether this is true or wrong.

[fccHandler]

I object to the title of this thread.

I read the PDF (http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/) of the decision, and I encourage everyone to do so.

The Supreme Court went to great measure to point out the differences between this case and the Sony case, and also a lot of similaries. But in no sense does this "override" the Sony ruling, as far as I can see.

It looks like you're safe as long as you're not considered to be actively promoting and soliciting infringement. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to me that P2P technology itself was ever threatened. Only this "Grokster" thing (a clone of Napster?), or "StreamCast", whatever that is... But hey, if you talk the talk, you'd better be ready to walk the walk. ;)

Not to change the subject, but right now I'm far more interested in the outcome of Macrovision's lawsuit against Sima.

[inspector-71]

Can someone who has read the decision (sorry, but 55 pages of legal pdf is too much for me) comment on wheather this has wider implications than p2p software. Specifically Newzbin and nzb files.

[fccHandler]

IANAL, but I think it will have implications if the movie studios decide to sue Newzbin. If the courts judge them to be advertising warez and copyrighted material, then the ruling means they can be held liable for their users' activities. If so, that may spell the end for Newzbin.

I'd still like to emphasize that neither P2P nor usenet were the actual targets in this case. The targets are those services which are blatantly soliciting people to infringe. In essence, P2P (like the VCR) is a technology which has the potential for both lawful and unlawful uses, and the Supreme Court seems to appreciate that fact. The ruling says basically that if a "device" (in this case, a software program) or service focuses "almost exclusively" on the unlawful uses of any technology, they can be held liable for damages.

It doesn't change the Sony case, because Sony wasn't marketing their product in that manner. Apparently Grokster was, or so the Court found.

[Atamido]

It doesn't change the Sony case, because Sony wasn't marketing their product in that manner.Nonsense. Neither the camcorder as we know it or the video rental store existed at the time. So the only purpose of the consumer line of video recorders could be copyright infringement. (The unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials from TV) The original Betamax decision was based on the findings that the use of the VCR did not have a significant impact on the revenue of the copyright holders.

[fccHandler]

So the only purpose of the consumer line of video recorders could be copyright infringement. (The unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials from TV)
That's nonsense. Video tape recorders and camcorders had existed since the 1960's but they were FAR too expensive. Sony's VCR wasn't cheap either, but it was reasonably priced for the consumer. And if you read the decision you'll see that the Supreme Court found that "time shifting" was a legitimate use of the VCR, and they did not consider it to be infringement. They even say that collecting a "library" of programs does not necessarily constitute infringement. They refer to it as "fair use."

[Doobie]

The Supreme Court went to great measure to point out the differences between this case and the Sony case, and also a lot of similaries. But in no sense does this "override" the Sony ruling, as far as I can see.

After the Betamax decision, VCR makers no longer had any fear of lawsuits. This decision opens the door for every P2P business (plus makers of MP3 players, etc.) to be sued. And, following Suiter's three examples, it would be very difficult for anyone to prove that they're not affirmatively promoting copyright violations. Without such legal protection, the MPAA/RIAA can force even "innocent" people out of business because many people don't have the resources to defend themselves.

It looks like you're safe as long as you're not considered to be actively promoting and soliciting infringement. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to me that P2P technology itself was ever threatened. Only this "Grokster" thing (a clone of Napster?), or "StreamCast", whatever that is... But hey, if you talk the talk, you'd better be ready to walk the walk. ;)

You need to go back and read Souter's comments, especially the one's I refered to in my previous message. StreamCast is Kazaa. Grokster is licensed client for the Kazaa network.

[fccHandler]

This decision opens the door for every P2P business (plus makers of MP3 players, etc.) to be sued. And, following Suiter's three examples, it would be very difficult for anyone to prove that they're not affirmatively promoting copyright violations. Without such legal protection, the MPAA/RIAA can force even "innocent" people out of business because many people don't have the resources to defend themselves.
:goodpost:

You make a very good point. All I'll say is that ideally the accused need not prove his innocence, rather, the MPAA/RIAA must prove that infringement took place. (Let's hope so, anyway...)

[celtic_druid]

Well the way I would see it is that if you were perceived as promoting use of your product for illegal purposes, such as copyright infringement, especially in order to cash in on the increased sales from said activities then you could be in trouble, otherwise not much has changed. As long as your product has legitmate uses and you don't promote illegal ones then I would think that you are fine.

[mpucoder]

Interesting, but unrelated, story about a decision that could backfire on Judge Souter here (http://news.public.findlaw.com/real_estate/ap/o/632/06-29-2005/fe8f0019890aa0db.html)

And a good analysis of the p2p decision here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050629_sunder.html)