Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Another attempt at news

<< < (2/3) > >>

MilkmanDan:
Ah. It would seem I didn't have the full story. I'm glad to hear the Betamax precident is untouched. So Grokster fucked up, but other P2P should be ok.

Samari:
well, ok so long as they can navigate around the whole intent issue.  I guess the court figured it couldn't allow a company to set up a buisness model solely based on profiting from copyright infringement.  the difference from Sony I would guess is that Sony was selling a product that could be used to violate copyright laws, but it really made no difference to them whether or nor people were using them legally.  Grokster on the other hand has a vested interest in people illegally distributing copyrighted materials because the more people who are illegally distributing material the more attractive their program becomes.

It would have been better for technology in general had grokster won outright, but it's not a very big loss except for companies who use availability of copyrighted materials as a selling point of their product.

Johnny C:

--- Quote from: Samari ---It's not as simple as that though.  The reason that SCOTUS found the way it did is because they saw clear evidence that the intent of the Grokster team was to create and promote the software for the purpose of infringing on copyrights.
--- End quote ---

Upon a second read of the article, this actually isn't too bad, at the moment; it only seems to apply to P2P programs which specifically intend to profit from copyrighted materials.

Sideways:
I'm a paralegal so I'll share my perspective on this ruling.

It means, essentially, that filesharing (P2P) providers are now held liable for copywrite infringement because they provide the tools necessary to locate and share media.

They always existed within a legal loophole.  Since they did not PROVIDE illegal material, only allowed individuals to share amongst themselves, they got away with it.

An appropos analogy;

You know a drug dealer.
You know a junkie.
You introduce the two of them, for no specific reason.
The drug dealer is now selling to the junkie (illegal).

What the hypothetical 'you' did in this scenario was perfectly fine... albeit negligent.  It wasn't a crime.

So this ruling would, based on the aforementioned analogy, mean that you could be charged with a criminal offence simply for allowing those two people to meet.

Now, back to the topic at hand... this means that programs like Kazaa, Soulseek, Morpheus, Napster, etc (P2P client-based programs) can all be held liable for copywrite infringement, even if they aren't HOLDING any illegal material.  I means they will likely all be shut down, or become 'pay for legal media' services instead.

trolley:
And torrents will rule.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page