The MGM-Grokster ruling
Today the Supreme Court ruled against Grokster on the MGM-Grokster case. MGM sued Grokster for creating a p2p program. MGM argued the Grokster's practices were tantamount to encouraging infringement, and hence not analogous to the Betamax case.
(I should disclose that I'm in no way a legal expert.)
Before the verdict was announced, the EFF (who represented Grokster) posted some guides about what the case was about. Also, Corante has a large list of online resources discussing the issue.
The decision stated, "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." Initial reaction (from the Grokster camp) is that this verdict narrowly addresses the particulars of the Grokster company. The EFF hoped the decision would answer broader questions about file sharing, such as 'how is the Betamax decision interpreted for digital media?' and 'What exactly constitutes vicarious infringement?'
I agree with the EFF that until these laws are clearer, innovation is curtailed since programmers and entrepreneurs don't know if their company will be sued by Hollywood.
I also think it's important to remember that the computer and telecommunications industry is like a hundred times bigger than Hollywood. If a technology is moderately good for the telco industry and really bad for Hollywood, it's still a net gain in social wealth.
(I should disclose that I'm in no way a legal expert.)
Before the verdict was announced, the EFF (who represented Grokster) posted some guides about what the case was about. Also, Corante has a large list of online resources discussing the issue.
The decision stated, "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." Initial reaction (from the Grokster camp) is that this verdict narrowly addresses the particulars of the Grokster company. The EFF hoped the decision would answer broader questions about file sharing, such as 'how is the Betamax decision interpreted for digital media?' and 'What exactly constitutes vicarious infringement?'
I agree with the EFF that until these laws are clearer, innovation is curtailed since programmers and entrepreneurs don't know if their company will be sued by Hollywood.
I also think it's important to remember that the computer and telecommunications industry is like a hundred times bigger than Hollywood. If a technology is moderately good for the telco industry and really bad for Hollywood, it's still a net gain in social wealth.
posted by Aaron Suggs at 4:14 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with JD. It is time for the movie and recording industries to understand that our paradigm for information sharing has changed. They should be spending their time and money on harnessing these new technologies to make money instead of trying to squelch technological innovation through the courts.
Since so much of the movie studio's profit is given to the movie studios it seems logical that they try to find a way to broadcast digital movies to a home audience immediately. It would cut out the middle man, thus allowing them more cut of the profits and audiences to see new movies in their home - where they seem to want to anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home