Supreme Court: File-Sharing Services Can Be Sued

[Nbadan]

Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued


WASHINGTON - Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services
Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.

File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.

More:Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_en_bu/scotus_file_sharing_4)

For all the grief Republicans give Hollywood they sure jump on the 'protect intellectual property' bandwagon when it comes to protecting rich Hollywood producers, execs, film and music companies.

[E20]

Why not just buy the CD rip it's track and return it? I've never done it before but, I'm sure you could.

[Nbadan]

The RIAA and MPAA have wanted this decision for decades. If a piece of software can encourage piracy then audio hardware manufacturers can be sued for encouraging people to copy cassettes, computer hardware manufacturers can be sued for making CD or DVD writers. The MPAA can finally take Sony to court over the despicable Video Recorder.

[spurster]

As I understand it, the key point is whether the software makers intended the software to be used for illegal purposes. I suppose it would be like being part of a conspiracy to commit crime.

However, I think the RIAA and MPAA efforts are in the end doomed. The whole Internet is really one great, big copy machine, happy to copy and distribute anything and everything.

[Useruser666]

I think this decision was made just so Hollywood could sue ISPs. Not that they will win in court or that P2P is illegal. Those rulings still stand seperate of this one.

[ObiwanGinobili]

shit.
i better hide my VCR.
I'm digging my DVD w/rw drive out of my system.
bury my early '90's rock mix tapes ffrom middle school in the back yard.

[MannyIsGod]

Dan, you're just as bad as Yonivore when it comes to spinning things. Chris hit the nail on the head.

[mookie2001]

its like that old chinese proverb with the stolen smell

[exstatic]

Ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of holding GM responsible for every vehicular manslaughter case involving one of their cars.

RIAA is putting nails in their own coffin. Most kids are smart enough to know that recording artists make shit on recordings, they only clear cash on tour. I think eventually, they will totally bypass the recording industry, and new music will be free, with proceeds made from touring, and possibly ads on the download sites or software. To the artist, it's basicly the same as it is now.

Fuck you, RIAA. You've been given FIVE YEARS since the advent of Napster to get your act together and come up with a new business model, and you keep trying to preserve the old one in court. Adapt or die, fools.

[MannyIsGod]

Ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of holding GM responsible for every vehicular manslaughter case involving one of their cars.

RIAA is putting nails in their own coffin. Most kids are smart enough to know that recording artists make shit on recordings, they only clear cash on tour. I think eventually, they will totally bypass the recording industry, and new music will be free, with proceeds made from touring, and possibly ads on the download sites or software. To the artist, it's basicly the same as it is now.

Fuck you, RIAA. You've been given FIVE YEARS since the advent of Napster to get your act together and come up with a new business model, and you keep trying to preserve the old one in court. Adapt or die, fools.
No one hates the RIAA here more than me, but this ruling isn't siding with either side of the issue. It's just saying that the cases are to be heard in court. One or 2 decisions will go against the RIAA and then the precident will be set.

[Mr. Ash]

Ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of holding GM responsible for every vehicular manslaughter case involving one of their cars.

If GM advertised that each one of their vehicles were perfect killing machines tuned to mow down pedistrians and nothing else, then I'd imagine GM could indeed have a problem. I detest the RIAA and MPAA, but Grokster and some others really made a mistake by advertising that thier services were perfect for piracy. This ruling doesn't really apply to most of the exisitng crop of file sharing applications - since they've been very careful not to "promote" illegal activity.

I mean, really, how often do you see a undivided supreme court these days? This one was easy - we'll have to wait and see how they rule on some tougher aspects of peer to peer.

[Useruser666]

I don't think Grokster ever advertised it's software in that way Mr. Ash. The RIAA just wants to expand every tool they can in fighting their battles. Being able to sue ISPs may be totally ridiculous, but they're desperate and will try anything.