Originally published July 15 2005
Court ruling against file-sharing networks inhibits technology innovations
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Some analysts worry the MGM v. Grokster case could establish a precedent that allows companies to gag new technology.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," wrote Justice David Souter.
But while entertainment companies touted the victory as a crystal clear decision about right and wrong business practices, technology groups said they are left with a murky, unclear standard of what it means for a company to encourage, or induce, its customers to infringe copyright, and this will lead to more litigation.
"On the one hand, (the court says) that Betamax stands," said Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The 1984 Sony Betamax case ruled that devices capable of substantial non-infringing uses were legal, even if they could be used to violate copyright.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, based on this doctrine, Grokster and StreamCast's software was legal.
The Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for courts to look at e-mail, marketing plans and engineering notes of companies that develop the next potentially infringing tech device, said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the EFF.
Michael Petricone, vice president of technology policy for the Consumer Electronics Association, said the trade group was concerned about this new threat of liability, especially when faced with competition from China and India that doesn't face the same legal burden.
Don Verrilli, who argued the case for the movie studios and music labels, said that the court agreed with the assertion that building a business by stealing another person's property is wrong.
The major movie studios and record labels petitioned the court to take the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that Grokster and StreamCast Networks were not liable for copyright infringement.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml