Is Verizon on the wrong side of the Grokster ruling?
posted Jul 1st 2005 3:28PM
Reader JPF asks a really great question: Would Verizon's advertisement for its new Fios fibre optic broadband service, which talks about how you'll be "downloading full feature films in no time," violate the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Grokster, which prohibits technology companies from promoting their services as facilitating piracy? Technically they're not encouraging people to download copyrighted materials, since it is possible to legally download feature films online, but if you visit old Grokster pages on the Wayback Machine you don't see anything on the site about how you can use their software to download movies or music (copyrighted or not), and they specifically ask users to comply with all copyright laws. How exactly is this any different from Verizon encouraging people to sign up for Fios in order to get faster downloads? Yeah, we know that Grokster was being a little two-faced about it, but does anyone seriously think that five years ago the telcos were all that upset that people were signing up for DSL so they could get faster Napster downloads? The point is that it's a gray area, and we suspect that it's going to start getting really difficult to determine with any accuracy when exactly a company with a product that facilitates file-sharing is promoting piracy and when it is not, which is why a lot more of these cases are going to end up in court.
They most definitely would be held liable. Along with every broadband service to date. Charter, etc still advertise their service as downloading movies and music really fast. Microsoft advertises their media center XP as being able to play music and movies over the network and through your TV.
This is no different than Napster, Grokster, or any other piece of software, service, and protocol that is used to transmit ANY data over the Internet. The ruling basically made everyone liable for anything. If the RIAA wanted to sue Microsoft for having file sharing abilities in their software and the fact that most pirates used Windows, they would have a damn good chance of draining them of billions and billions.
Congress better do something before the various M and R and whatever else IAA's start taking over the world... i mean, no matter your view on "stealing" intelectual property, the dudes running these companies aren't in it for the honesty and principal of the whole thing... it wasn't more than a couple of years ago the music industry got sewed for jacking the price of CD's right? They'll fight just as dirty as any music pirate will, exept this ruling by the supreme court made all of us the kind of pirates who sport peg legs, and replaced their knives with big old machetes.
If this ended up in court...just come on.
It doesn't say how you will be downloading these films, did you ever think it could be LEGALY? There are legal ways to download movies, I beleive.
This comment is misleading. Read the case. Justice Souter's opinion that there is enough evidence for MGM to go to trial (not that Grokster is liable) turns entirely on evidence that Grokster advertised its software for the purpose of illegally obtaining protected works. If the evidence showed that Grokster had simply given out its software, suitable for both legal and illegal purposes (even if primarily used for the improper purpose), Souter would have found this evidence inadaquate to support MGM's claim. The chilling effect of what this decision says concerning commercial speech is bad enough - it does not say (and neither should anyone else) that anyone who knowingly gives away software used (primarily) to obtain protected material is liable.
I understand your point, but what I'm getting at is that the fundamental question here is how do you define someone as advertising their software for the purpose of illegally obtaining protected works? It's pretty easy to spot the obvious examples, but how do you deal with situations where potentially illegal uses are implied or could be construed as being implied? It's like trying to define pornography.
Yeah but if they got a finger pointed at them they could just mention they were refering to all the legal music and movie downloads services out there like movielink and not P2P type services.
This is the type of gray area that Supreme Court rulings typically leave open. It allows the lower courts to interpret the ruling as it fits into each individual case. If the lower courts get bombarded with cases regarding this and there is significant confusion, the next case to come before the SC dealing with this issue will allow the SC to further narrow it down.
These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user. And, by extension, neither can any other provider of software meeting those conditions. The lower Grokster decision did not explicitly state that Grokster must not promote criminal use, though that seems implicit in "has substantial legal use", when such a condition is nowhere mentioned explicitly.
I'm still utterly confused about the MGM vs. Grokster ruling. In lamens terms, what was the wording of the ruling? Was the ruling that Grokster is liable for its P2P app because it distributed said app knowing full well that said app's purpose was for legal and, most importantly, illegal purposes?
And if the ruling is easy to interpret, then an article such as this one wouldn't invoke confusion.
There are three MAJOR differences:
1) Verizon has not openly associated itself with an illegal company claiming to be the next "Napster."
2) Verizon has not boasted that it's looking to get in trouble making statements akin to "we're looking to get sued."
3) Verizon is not sending out emails to its customers instructing them on how to use the product for illegal purposes.
Yes, I understand your point. Intent is always hard to define. However, the courts have a history of erring on the side of caution there.
Jeff: I'll make an analogy that will help you understand the ruling.
A gun maker advertises their guns with the slogan: "Great for shooting your neighbors in the head" Then, someone goes and shoots their neighbor in the head with one of those guns. The gun maker can now be held as a responsible party under this ruling.
Now apply it to software: Grokster supposedly advertised their software as great for downloading illegal copies of movies/music... Now under this new ruling, they can be held liable for everyone who uses their software to download a copyrighted work.
The reason so many people are worried about this is because it essentially voids the Betamax ruling of many years ago which stated that if a product has significant legitimate use, it's makers are not liable for what people do with it (a la using your vcr to copy a movie and give it to a friend)
Matt,
Actually the courts were very careful to *not* revisit Sony v. Universal. MGM asked them to delve into that and they denied their request saying something like "We'll take a look at that when a Sony v. Universal case comes along."
They simply said that the lower courts incorrectly applied it here.
if you go to the site and click on the "go" button, it does say "download multiple purchased albums in a flash."
Both feature-length films and CD-Quality audio are available for download from legitimate commercial sources such as iTunes and MovieLink.
Grokster nevermentioned downloading ILLEGAL anything. They just mentioned movies and music. Period. The decision was made because everyone was using it for illegal purposes mainly and Grokster knew this, but didn't stop advertising "movies and music" OR put something in place to stop it. That's it. In laymans terms. This can hodl Microsoft accountable just as easy because most people use Windows and various parts of the OS are considered a "service".
engadget asks when this will stop...when monkeys fly out of my butt.
the only difference here is that its verizion and they can pay hush money to the aa's to keep this out of court... if they so desire, or hire a team of lawyers that rival that of the aa's. there is no way to put the file sharing p2p genie back in his bottle.
hes out for good. people will just find new ways of doing the same old thing.
I don't think so, what with a number of services coming out with legally downloadable movies. Even if they do get sued this is a major corporation, maybe someone will finally stand up to those jackass recording companies.
that ruling effectively outlawed all computers
first off, not sure why even feels the need to keep pointing this out, but engadget actually did mention in the post that it's possible to get legal movie downloads in the post. second off, even if that's true, so what? it was possible to get legal movies and music through grokster (and every other p2p) because there are always people who don't mind their work being shared online.
now that isn't to say that grokster didn't cross some sort of line here. from everything I've read, including the decision, it sounds like it's pretty clear that they knew that their software was facilitating piracy and that they certainly had no problem with that being known.
what worries me is how you define something as murky as promoting piracy. if I acknowledge that it's possible to pirate content with my software, but don't condone it or take steps to stop it, is that promoting piracy? where do you draw the line?
Wait until the Morpheus ruling that will emerge presently. Although I realize that this is a grokster discussion the subject (and the objective) is much broader. The attack on P2P is a blanket attempt by standing media powerhouses to maintain control over their markets, not an attempt to increase profits by decreasing piracy. Media power is quintessentially an American phenomenon and has been since the 20's. NBC's newest attack on google over their video search features. This is a good example of my point here...IF existing media outlets can restrict information access by preventing video on Google for example, they don't just stop their material being distributed, they stop OTHER people from distributing video via these means. Many bands, for example distribute their music through P2P, because its a great way to develop a following. By limiting P2P you force these non-commercial artists out of their non-commerical environments by restricting thier supply chain. There seems to be a very sinister agenda to the RIAA's current list of cases and it's got little to do with pirate downloads. The same guys who queued for a week to see starwars on the big screen, will afterall, when their missus asks them to go see a chick flick say I'll wait until it's on Cable. They get their dollars because consumers choose to experience their product in different ways. If the product iosn't worth a consumers estimation, then the consumer will not want to own it. Its as simple as that.
The fact is there are few good movies left to be made in a highly commercial environment, witness the proliferation of awful shite that passes for 'talent' on deregulated TV and Radio. Look at the governments withdrawl of PBS and PBR funding. Look at the attempts to silence independant voices through indepentant media. Even Howard Stern for chrissakes, and he has NOTHING to say! The RIAA and the media giants they represent are simply trying to keep their medium and the message under their control. And their message, unlike that of the internet, is no longer consistant. TV is propaganda and lies and short sells. Movies are product placements and merchandising ad's. Music provides the soundtrack for pre-packed teenage rebellion, feeding immoral desire and sub-cultural and ethnic segregation. The RIAA's actions, if viewed in such a cynical fashion are not only about power, they are equally about control through division. The US government will not doubt relentlessly persue their agenda. It is after all, in their interests to do so.
iTunes downloads are CD-quality? shiggity... all i get with WMP10 is 128k... tops, because i decided to do the legal way with napster... while my friends can get 320k music from limewire.. boo to them
ill look into iTunes then, i just figured it was low bitrate like most music stores, and itd be better to go out and buy the CD for best audio quality and support the bands puttin them out, but this might give me a reason to buy that iPod... maybe :)
Whoa...Farther into the site Verizon spells it out even more clearly...
"Here's the high-speed lowdown: Choose one of three Fios download speed options ranging from 5Mbps up to 30Mbps, with upload speeds reaching 5Mbps. That's life-changing speed. That means downloading Hollywood blockbusters faster than you can boil pasta."
I only downloaded the Hollywood Blockbuster because Verizon gave me the idea and the means ur honor...
Does anyone even use P2P apps anymore? They are garbage, full of trash. The present and future is Bittorrent and Bittorrent-like applications. If you want "illegal things' then, sure...But I have not found a better way to obtain videocasts, games and game updates, etc. As well as a sure fire way of sharing my 1gb+ movies I have made with friends and family. Go look at all the legal torrents out there. There are tons that are not only educational, but genuinely useful. Perhaps I am straying, but everyone really is. Why? Because there are so many subjects directly related to this. Shut down all P2P programs, it won't matter. We all have the internet, and as long as that is around I can get a Sin City DVD rip, the Full, lossless Coldplay album, new Fantastic 4 video game, Final Cut Pro, and "Learning French" audiobooks, any time, anywhere, whether I have Dial-Up or a T1.
There are legal services to download Music and Movies...
Nice Post #24 I agree if we have the internet there will always be a way to download illegal properties. I mean the industry hasnt even began to attack irc and usenet yet.
Verizon can easily state that you can download blockbuster movies when there are MANY legal services out there for such actions (see getflics, movielink and gettingmovies). The servies are similar in concept to ITunes and other MP3 databases.
It would be near impossible to hold Verizon accountable for facilitating piracy; if such action was taken, then the internet would no longer exist; such downloads can occur with ANY ISP. At no time did Verizon provide the actual tool to acquire illegal content, which Grokster and the like actually provided such access.
Look at it this way: Can you hold a vehicle manufacturer accountable because you saw their product being used by a bank robber in a movie and then also in real life? If the car was designed retrofitted with illegal parts to avoid capture, then the one who installed those parts would be accountable - not the vehicle manufacturer.
#24, bit torrent is P2P. And #15, I didn't think itunes had cd quality audio. There's really not that many places you can get cd quality audio online. Maybe they're referring to archive.org?
Anything faster than 28.8Kbps promots file sharing.
Jon, there is a such thing as streaming, in which (as far as my knowledge goes) no data is saved on your computer, and therefor is just 'viewing' content.
Just had a look at Verizons page for FIOS, and they seem to have made a mistake. They say that their fibre connection is so fast because of the speed light travels at, well duh! Electricity moves almost as fast down a copper cable, even if a signal travels at 9k6bps down a cable, the time from the leading edge of the first bit being sent and then received is almost as quick as speed of light.
The DATA rate however is a function of PULSE WIDTH, not how fast the electrical atoms or light photons travel.
For example 10 pulses per second is a lot slower DATA rate than 1,000,000 pulses but the atoms / photons travel at exactly the same speed. The pulse widths on the 1MBit signal just happen to be a hundred thousand times smaller so more can be squeezed into one second.
I know this is nit picking but I just couldn't help myself! Think it's funny when major carriers spout bullsh*t in the name of advertising.
#21... great post. while some may not agree with some of your other points (i do however agree) you definately hit the nail on the head when you say that theres an underlying agenda to the lawsuits. its definately all about control and maintaining their current revenue.
#21 do you have a screen name or something along those lines where i could talk to you?
If a court wanted to differentiate between the behavior of Verizon and Grokster, they could create a test that goes something like this:
1. if the defendent has knowledge that the majority of the uses of their technology is illegal, and:
2. afterwards, the defendent continues to advocate use of their product in a way that could be interpretted as ambiguously advocating legal or illegal use,
Then continuing ambiguous advertisements are evidence of inducement.
However, this still might not be enough to clear Verizon, depending on how you count "majority of uses", since very likely at least a simple majority of Verizon's bandwidth is being used for piracy. (on the other hand, if you count "use" closer to something like individual webpage fetches, then very likely there are more legitimate uses, since the average HTTP fetch tends to be much smaller than the average P2P/bittorrent file)
I am a comment spammer: news@futureventspr.com
...and now for something completely different...
Just noticed that the one of the adsense ads that showed up with this post offer "unlimited movie downloads". I followed the ad (your welcome) and the site says it's 100% legal, but in the their disclaimer you can read the following:
"www.internetdownloads.org is not based in the USA. The latest USA court desition against Grokster Networks does not apply internationally". Hmmmmm...
#33. Yes I do. MSN me at gsdurrant@hotmail.com. I'd be glad to chat. As an addendum to piracy, although it's not spectacularly relevant. I had a discussion with a friend who runs a small record label with about 5000 titles, and he releases and sells mostly vinyl, which, short of realtime scanning with good equipment, is impossible to reproduce on original medium without very heavy paperwork. Plus vinyl has a far better dynamic range than CD. So here's an idea - Why don't Music companies take a good look at producing more 'audiophile' vinyl to reduce piracy when there are obvious benefits to the the consumer in terms of quality?