GristyMcFisty used our news submit to tell us that the P2P software providers and the Motion Picture Association of America, will present their arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States in March. The highest court in the land will listen to testimony put forth by the MPAA stating that the 1984 Betamax case, which ruled in favor of Sony, is not a suitable precedent. They will argue that Sony had no way to control the illegal use of the VCR, but P2P software providers are capable of coding their programs so as to stop the downloading of copyrighted content.
|
The hearings will mark the latest step in the music and movie industries" attempts to have P2P software nobbled in order to prevent massive-scale copyright infringement, and to have P2P companies make good the revenue the business claims to have lost to that infringement. But action brought against P2P software companies Grokster and Streamcast failed to deliver that result at either the District Court or the appeal court level. In each instance, the judgement in favour of P2P were made on the basis of the precedent set by the 1984 Sony Betamax case. |
According to the Register, we will hear of this important decision, sometime this coming July. Let's hope that the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts opinions and decides that it truly is impossible for P2P software makers to create a code that will disallow illegal downloads. It seems pretty clear cut that this would be an impossible task due to the sheer numbers of people out there that continue to swap copyrighted files. You know the old saying, where there's a will there's a way. What seems more important, is that we don't have a new precedent set, that states a software provider (or hardware for that matter) is ever responsible for the actions of the end user. It is surely going to be detrimental to the developement of new products, if the provider has to fear future litigation from misuse of their creations.
I wonder if anyone out there after reading this story, can tell us why the American cigarette manufacturers were found liable for damages to end users and made to pay fines in the billions of dollars (ok the states and the attorneys mainly) for purchasing and using their product? After all, what's the difference between software providers and cigarette providers? Alcohol is bad too, I don't see them being sued! I think I know the answer to this as I read it once. Let's see if someone else really knows.
In the meantime, we will of course keep close tabs on the story as it progresses. Feel free to place your personal arguments here, or in the Music Downloads, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum.
Source: The Register
