I'm a Human Inbox

Monday, June 27, 2005

The Grokster Decision

Today the MGM vs Grokster case came to a close, with the court ruled unanimously in entertainment industries' favor.

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.

Read MoreHilary Rosen amazingly enough wrote a piece that I both agreed with and disagreed with at the same time. At first she says:

The euphoria of this decision does not and should not change the need for the entertainment industry to push foward and embrace these new distribution systems. Does the court win help? Maybe, but only if this victory is seen as gaining leverage in business negotiations rather than an invitiation to only pursue more litigation and enforcement. Certainly there will be some P2P services who will be in a better position to play here than others.

Amazing, a former employee of RIAA warning against excessive P2P litigation. I almost start to respect her until she switches gears and says this:

The mainstream technology industry should also be pleased with this decision. I dont' think they are going to be victims of a rash of lawsuits against the iPod and other products a was claimed multiple times. This decision should be seen as permission to distinguish in the industry between those with good intentions versus those with nefarious interests.

This shows that Hilary is full of shit. Do you think that given a new weapon against copyright infringement that RIAA and other organizations such as the MPAA will decide not to sue?
And lastly, EFF has something to say about this:

Today the Supreme Court has unleashed a new era of legal uncertainty on America's innovators," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF's senior intellectual property attorney. "The newly announced inducement theory of copyright liability will fuel a new generation of entertainment industry lawsuits against technology companies. Perhaps more important, the threat of legal costs may lead technology companies to modify their products to please Hollywood instead of consumers.