http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1499297/20050330/index.jhtml?headlines=true
Side-Note: I'm currently working on a term-paper which pertains to my support of file-sharing and I'm wondering to what other's perspectives are on this rather controversial issue.....
Here's a poll:
Support Grokster?
Support The Record Labels?
Indifferent?
Any feedback would be vastly appreciated....
Grokster File-Sharing Case Hits The Supreme Court
03.30.2005 5:36 PM EST
High court argues over whether file-sharing services set out to infringe.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from representatives of major film studios and the recording industry who are seeking to shut down peer-to-peer services they say are costing them billions of dollars.
One of the questions the court kept coming back to was this: What's more important — preventing potential copyright violations or allowing the market to come up with innovative new products?
The case began when MGM and several record labels filed suit against StreamCast Networks and file-sharing network Grokster, arguing that they were intentionally created to allow people to illegally trade copyrighted material. That case was thrown out by a circuit court in August, paving the way for it to be argued in front of the Supreme Court.
"The scale of the whole thing is mind-boggling," argued recording industry lawyer Donald Verrilli. "They intentionally built a network of infringing users."
This case is different from the one that brought down file-sharing pioneer Napster in 2001 because, unlike that renegade service, Grokster doesn't have a central directory that helps people swap files, but instead merely provides the software for them to swap whatever files they choose.
Justice Stephen Breyer said that distinction makes the services a different animal entirely, and he compared it to the good and bad uses that have plagued every invention dating back to the printing press. "There are, conceptually anyway, really excellent uses of this thing," Breyer said.
During the hour-long debate, the justices also questioned whether other devices that can potentially be used to make illegal copies — such as photocopiers, VCRs or MP3 devices — would exist if lawsuits had been leveled against their inventors. Justice Antonin Scalia worried that innovators might be convinced, "I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."
The justices argued that limiting the ability of new technologies like those used by Grokster could harm the creation of important new products like Apple's wildly popular iPod. But Verrilli quickly put some space between Grokster and the iPod, by arguing, "From the moment that device was introduced, it was obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial uses for it."
Verrilli asked the justices to consider the question of how to gauge whether companies such as Grokster and StreamCast have built their businesses on helping their users illegally trade copyrighted material.
Harold Feld of the nonprofit public-interest law firm the Media Access Project attended the hearing and said it was not clear how the justices felt about the services.
"The justices didn't appear to be happy about what the movie and recording industries were asking for," said Feld. "They're asking for a rule [requiring that] a substantial amount of the technology is not infringing, [and] if it is mostly used for infringing, then the company should be held liable. But in [a 1984 case involving Sony and VCRs] the Supreme Court said that if you have a technology that is capable of infringing and noninfringing uses, then you can't hold the maker of the technology liable for the infringing use."
Grokster lawyer Richard Taranto argued that they have "growing legitimate uses" and that hundreds of thousands of files that are not subject to copyright are available for trading on them.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed unimpressed, and asked Taranto whether it is right to use money generated by selling stolen property to help finance an emerging technology. "That seems wrong to me," Kennedy said.
A spokesperson for Grokster would not comment on the proceedings. A ruling on the case is expected by late June.
For complete digital music coverage, check out the Digital Music Reports.
— Gil Kaufman
Side-Note: I'm currently working on a term-paper which pertains to my support of file-sharing and I'm wondering to what other's perspectives are on this rather controversial issue.....
Here's a poll:
Support Grokster?
Support The Record Labels?
Indifferent?
Any feedback would be vastly appreciated....