In an hour-long hearing, the Supreme Court justices are facing a tough decision on which way to go for the entertainment industries vs. Streamcast Networks and Grokster. A bad decision would not only affect file sharing companies, but could potentially affect other technology companies such as those developing upcoming music players. On the other hand, deciding that companies can create products with no concern for copyright infringement could encourage companies to continue to use piracy as a method of promoting or selling their products, which is clearly wrong to the justices.
So far two previous federal court rulings went in favour of file-sharing software companies by comparing file sharing networks to photocopiers and VCRs, both of which can be used for legitimate and illegitimate purposes. However, in this case the justices are aiming to find alternative ways to hold Grokster & Streamcast liable for supporting widespread piracy, but in a way that both preserves innovation and does not require major revisions to copyright law.
The entertainment industry proposed that companies which mainly rely on copyright infringement should be held liable for piracy. However even if this were the case, inventors may end up fearing lawsuit threats should their products end up widely being abused by copyright infringement. For example MP3 players are both widely being used for both playing legitimate content as well as content illegally obtained from other sources. eranros and DamnedIfIknow both used our news submit to let us know about the following news:
|
Attorneys for the major record labels and Hollywood studios argued in front of the court in one of the most closely watched copyright cases in decades, which many observers say could help set the ground rules in the entertainment and technology industries for years to come. The justices were clear that they were concerned about the effect of their ruling on the ability of technology companies to create future products like Apple Computer's iPod. However, several appeared to seek a way of holding file-swapping companies responsible for the piracy on their networks without endangering other technology companies. Allowing companies to issue products with no concern for copyright infringement would amount to "unlawful expropriation of property as a kind of start-up capital," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "From an economic standpoint and legal standpoint, that sounds wrong." Read the full rather lengthy article here. |
Unlike the lower court rulings, this court is taking both piracy and the effects of a ruling very seriously. As Streamcast and Grokster mainly relied on users swapping copyrighted material in order to make their software popular, the Supreme Court aims to find a method to consider this issue without either declaring P2P illegal and potentially anything else that makes use of unauthorised copyrighted material or allowing P2P companies to get away with using piracy as the main method of promoting their software.
However even if the entertainment industries win their case, this does not suddenly mean that their efforts in stopping piracy on file sharing networks will become easier. On the other hand if P2P networks are still declared legal, this does not mean P2P companies will be safe from lawsuits for copyright infringement.
Feel free to discuss and find out more about the legal issues of file sharing on our Music Downloads, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum.
Source: C|net News - The Net
