Grokster loses

This is slightly outside of our jurisdiction as a gadget site, but screw it, this news is too big: Grokster just lost. By a unanimous vote the Supreme Court held that software developers are violating federal when they create file sharing applications and then also take "affirmative steps to foster infringement." It's hard to conceive of all the wide-ranging implications of this ruling. Sure it'll mean that the record labels and movie studios can sue the heck out of P2P companies that facilitate unauthorized file swapping, but the real question is, what consititutes an "affirmative step to foster infringment"? Seems vague enough to apply to all sorts of stuff, and no doubt the RIAA and MPAA are uncorking the Cris right now.

[Trae Shaw @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Oh fuck...

[Digital Dave @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

They'll never be able to stop file sharing... Ever.

[tweaq @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

why don't they go after the problem where it "starts"...newsgroups. at least give them a challenge or something, take down regular p2p programs seem to be pretty easy.

[Graeme @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Well, I suppose they could always turn off the internet. That'd teach us to cheat content distributors our of their free money.

[evlfred @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

it's not THAT wide ranging, read the decision. It says you violate the law if you PROMOTE a P2P for share copywrited files. Not if it's used for it.

[Alex Clifford @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Uncorked? Please. Cris is popped.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

...software developers are violating federal law when they create file sharing applications...

[Groin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

evlfred: Not the promotion, bu the actual distribution of it:

"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling."

That's a big difference, and it means that anyone who programs a P2P and sends it into, eh, cyberspace, can be sued for billions and billions by Steven Hollywood & Co.

That is quite wide ranging AFAIK.

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

No-one is going to see this comment in the middle of all the people going "holy cow!" but the Engadget posting isn't quite right. The ruling of the supreme court was basically this:

1. It is legal to distribute a device/software to infringe copyright.
2. It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device/software.

So selling video/dvd recorders won't stop overnight, unless the manufacturers were extoling the virtues of copying videos/dvd from your mates for free.

Just to clear things up.

[Gabe @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The Grokster opinions can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html

Gabe

[Thresher @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

We have no one to blame but ourselves. I don't think it's reasonable that we should expect 12 technically un-savvy old people to understand the implications of peer-to-peer clients. They don't understand that these products could be used to make content sharing a much more efficient method of distribution if only someone at a media company would show a bit of creativity for once.

We need to start talking to our legislators so that they here more than the carping of the media conglomerates and that failure to do so could jeapordize their tenure in their positions.

[khamel @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

as long as i can still burn 30 gig dvds in two years im good. this also will do little to nothing to change the current move to bit torrent. the ruling just gives the MPAA and RIAA another group that they can sue but most people have shifted to the decentralized bit torrent which has always been susceptible to individual, and unlikely, lawsuits. who even still uses the regular, adware filled kazaa? its a bad precedent, for downloaders, but its probably the right decision. this might scare off some people who are on the fence but if you are in it with both feet you'll just make sure to update the firewall and blacklist the right ip addresses and keep on keepin on. Necessity is the mother of invention right?

[Peter Rojas @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Richard,

That's exactly what I wrote: "...when they create file sharing applications and then also take 'affirmative steps to foster infringement.'" It's the combination of actions that they've deemed illegal.

[teksno @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

lets face it... the supreme court gave a ruling that is to broad... a DVD writer that i have in my computer can be used to infringe on copy rights by making cpoies of CD's...or DVD's for that matter... software that will let you mount a disc image can also be cover under this...

the genie is out... because the major players didnt think tha they could be touched. now"they" (read riaa mpaa and other various **aa's) are geting the crap kicked out of them because they failed to realize that their methods were outdated, and abusive. they failed to grasp what the internet ment. we, everyone now has a voice.

this all started with the invention of the tcp/ip stack, and the digitalazation of content, people wanted to do more with computers, and a few people saw that computers can do anything you can program.

protocols like bit torrent are turley revolutionary. and the fact that the project is open source speaks volumes for the creators vision of his project... adn as long as people like cohen exist, the thech will move faster then the companies can grasp it, and controll it. because the genie that the **aa's were hiding has been let out...they are runnig scared. running all the way to the lawmakers, with high priced lawyers that people like you and me, the future inventors on the net, cant afford.

this may be a sad day for p2p apps, but once again, the genie has already been let out. and you cant put him back.

[Mack Swift @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Off of CNN:

Despite Monday's decision, the battle over file-sharing is far from over. The Supreme Court order sends the Grokster case back for retrial to the same lower court that had ruled for Grokster and StreamCast Networks.

Also check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/grokster_winners_losers.gif

It's far from over. Very far. Hell iTunes and Musicmatch could use to infringe. Your gmail and Yahoo email could be used to infringe.

All the Supreme Court did was start a bigger mess. Now my voice recorder for class can be used to infringe if I place it by a radio speaker playing a song.

[brocked @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

big deal... the SC just abolished private property last week, you just need to establish a legal "gadget city" and then claim eminent domain on all copyrighted music, movies, books, etc. for the greater "community good"

ahahahahahahaaaa

[mobile jones @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Well, the decision effectly makes the development of legitmate P2P business an expensive and legally complicated thing to do. Well, complicated in the US. Our Supreme Court can't grant the right to sue in other countries, so P2P development relocates. I agree with others here who rightly point out that the genie is out of the bottle, but so is the lawyer.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I'm with the first guy eheh.

[Malfoy Roark @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

re: 16

Greatest idea...in the last 2 days. I nominate you Mayor. :)

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

I hope filesharing dies. It'd be nice if we're not the last generation to get to go to the movies.

[Bobby D. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The decision seems well-reasoned. You guys might like to read it, instead of just assuming you know what it says, or that it must be word salad from twelve senile folks. Remember reading? It makes us, like, educated.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf

[alex @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Of course the one person on here who thinks this is a good decision doesn't even have the intelligence to know that the Supreme Court has nine people on it, not 12.

[Bobby D. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

And I guess that's what's known as an ad hominem attack...which doesn't require reading. Yay!

If you HAVE actually read the decision, why do you disagree with it?

[Sam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

This kind of sounds like how people sell bongs, but promote them as "tobacco water pipes".

If you read the ruling, you'll see it is the only fair way to go. They were very fair in stating that many products could have illegal use, but as long as they were being promoted for legal uses, then its fine.

They site the VCR, when the media companies sued Sony because people were using it to tape shows... but they ruled it was OK because the taping was being used simply to watch the shows later, and not to freely mass-distribute copyrighted material.

File sharing can continue to grow easily if it proves itself to have legal uses. If someone creates Bit Torrent, and promotes its legal uses, then they are fine.

The problem is, the supreme court found out that Grokster had promoted its software for file-sharing copyrighted material, and when people sent them emails asking them how to do so, they gave them instructions on it, instead of avoiding it.


The bottom line is, you can "hate" the "corporate fat cats" all you want, but they are just people looking to make some money. No one thought that paying for content was so terrible until file sharing came along... then all of a sudden these businessmen are the devil.

Truth is, I keep reading those saying that "the people are speaking out" against big media, but in reality, what we're seeing is a bunch of lazy thieves who want to steal product from its producers, and justify their deeds.

I bet if it was YOUR million dollars invested in a movie, you would be outraged by the copyright infringement going on with this software.

I've got an idea, just keep watching the movies for free... then see how long the movie companies stay in business. One day, when all we have is crappy B movies made by indie filmmakers, we'll have you to thank.


Final note... if the creators of Bit Torrent are so interested in the good they can do and "changing the internet" with their open source software, they should be very concerned about people tarnishing its good uses by associating it with content theft. If I created the baseball bat so kids everywhere could have fun, and 95% of people bought one to beat someone up with, I'd be pretty upset. So why aren't the software creators speaking out?

[teksno @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

if i cant point you the the top of my comment...

# 14...

its like diane feinsteins position on the broadcast flag... its uneducated...

basicly this ruling allows draconian institutes (read **aa's) to sue any new p2p app or protocall, thus stiefiling innovation. imaginge what hosting videos would be like for a small webserver with out bittorrent. do you use linux... DL'ing the latest distro takes a long time with a http or ftp transfer... with a well seeded torrent your really only at the mercy of what you isp will give you as far as sustained speeds...

not to mention future applications of the protocal.

i commented a while ago on a possible system where tv networks release tv shows at the end of the season (when summer reruns start) for free and with no DRM. supplamented with about half the add time but more targeted and focused ads. imagine all the publicity that they would get from sites like this and slashdot and boing boing...free publicity... well as soon as they do, what ever servers have those shows on them would crash terriably with the standard methods of transfer (ftp/http). with BT the tv network would save a few hundred thousand in bandwidth costs...

but if you mention bit torrent, you also have to mention the abilty to infringe on copy rights... a 700mgb movie used to take nearly a day to download of the kazaa nets...not bt makes it only take a hour of less depending on the torrent.

with such a broad judgement laid down by the SCt, a protocall that may one day take the place of BT, could be all but shot down, squised and never see the light of day thanks to pricey lawyers that can be purchased by the **aa's and not the poor dev's looking for a paypal donation so they can order a pizza while the code the next release of their baby...

thats why.

[cmoney @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

#25: except if no one promotes BT for copyright infringement, then by the supreme court's ruling, it's not necessarily illegal. they're not ruling the p2p itself is illegal, it's the promotion of p2p as a method of copyright infringement that's illegal.

they're ruling that, if you promote your p2p program as a way to infringe copyright, ie get free songs, download free movies, then you are in fact liable for the infringement itself.

however if i came out with a BT-like protocol tomorrow and said, "hey TV studios, now you can offer TV program downloads without the cost of all that bandwidth" then that's perfectly legal. if that protocol then gets hijacked and reused for piracy, i am not liable for that infringement.

seriously, it's such common sense, i don't see how people don't understand this.

[Malfoy Roark @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Ok Bobby here we go:

1. It's broad enough that the **AAs can get their case to court and hold out till their opposition settles or files for bankruptcy.
2. It's broad enough that the **AAs can argue that anyone who isn't actively attacking those using their products for piracy is "supporting it".
3. Number 2 will then cause the burden to be on the operators of the P2P system, which is not good because it's gonna get expensive and tedious quick.[Needless to say I was opposed to the decision to shift any responsibility to the ISPs.]

4. Because of #3 and those before it, it keeps boiling down to a money game, that only the tech heavy weights can compete against the *AAs on.

To conclude this, it all comes down to the **AAs buying their victories, and the SC was the last line to but put a hamper on this. But alas, people will have to result to civil disobedience since there are very few groups who can take them on legally and those groups find they can find more money by manipulating the **AAs[Good job MS, Longhorn and its successor will bring the **AAs to your door and Gates will be the "gate keeper"]

[Bollocks Mate @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Makes no sense:

�affirmative steps to foster infringement.�

What about recorder machines like CDs, DVDs, tapes, etc?
Telling us these things do not take affirmative steps to foster infringment?
I don't see the Secret Service running around every cinema to catch people video-taping the films, do I?

Or is this case more specific to ONLINE sharing/downloading only? Is that what they mean?

So if some dude went to a country outside of the International Copyright Agreement and extradition treaties, and set himself up there and did as he pleased, the government can't do anything about it, right?

[Bobby D. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Neither of you guys have read the decision. It addresses all of your points and it's short; take a look.

[J Low @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Damn! Supreme Court's fuckin' up!

[Pip @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

It's a pretty good call overall.

So long as you dont advertise as being able to steal movies, you're in the clear. So long as your network hub doesn't advertise it, you're in the clear.

As far as I know, none of these companies ever came out and said 'Download free illegal copies of movies!'

So, they're all in the clear because of this ruling. Otherwise even Microsoft would be held liable for just having file sharing embedded into Windows since most people infringing on copyright use Windows and Microsoft has done nothing to prevent it.

So sorry RIAA, and MPAA. Please try again.

[Bill @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Read it and weep...

http://www.barhydt.net

I think digital media technology innovation is going to be severely restricted as a result of this ruling based on ignorance.

[Bill @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

to clarify my earlier comment, by 'baed on ignorance' I wasnt' referring to the ruling itself, which I found to be well worded. I was referring to it's interpretation by all involved including the RIAA/MPAA who can now sue everyone even if no harmful intent can be proven just to slow down the application of technologies that are harmful to them. The irony is that they would have gladly fought the DVD player had the Betamax precedent not been set. Of course we now know that the DVD player saved the movie business.

[Cuba @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

Anyone know where on the Grokster website it promotes illegal file sharing, because I can't find it.

[AH @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

The supplementary opinion by Breyer, Stevens and O'Connor makes a good deal of sense as well. I do hope the Appeals court keeps it in mind when they redo the case.

The opinion handed down seemed to center on the issue of summary judgment in favor of Grokster. There should have been a qualified judgment - there are areas where Grokster was stupid in its published media promoting its program. They actually announced themselves as a way to get around having to pay for material!

[Adam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

p2p users actually win, as they're at more financial risk when they are the sole target of the finite (theorhetically) resources of anti-piracy organizations.

Whereas those of us who stand to benefit from the underlying technology for legal purposes lose big-time. Unless "affirmative steps to foster infringment" could just be narrowly interpreted. Anyone remember when the judiciary interpreted things narrowly? I don't.

Did I mention that execs who are looking to preserve ancient business models that have outlived their usefulness in an attempt to avoid unemployment due to a paleolithic skill set also win?

[Sam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

If you actually knew anything about the music business, you would know that most of those executives you love to bitch about were fired a long time ago when the revenues collapsed. The "business" is now run by interns...guess they have paleolithic skill sets too?

[Dmnkly @ Dec 19th 2005 12:17AM]

What I think is important to remember here is that this is exactly the kind of thing that anti-piracy folks have been predicting all along. When you pirate music or software, in the end, the person it hurts is you. If you feel that innovation is likely to be stifled by this decision (a reasonable conclusion, I think), and you've downloaded music, movies, etc. illegally via P2P software at some point, then YOU share in the blame. And this isn't to say that you're alone... there's plenty to go around... but recognize that you played a part in this decision before you point fingers elsewhere.