MGM v. Grokster case returns to district court

June 28, 2005 @ Michael HamptonOne Comment

I wasn’t even going to mention this, since it’s just a bit outside what I usually look at here, but not only is my RSS feed full of news about it, but several people wrote in asking for a statement.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday in theMGM v. Grokster case that creators of file-sharing software could be held liable for inducing infringement, if such creators showed “clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.” It stated that the protection inSony v. Betamax did not apply to such cases.

The case has been returned to district court and will be heard again on that basis.

The chief concern with this case is that the ruling may threaten further technology innovation in peer-to-peer communications.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been assisting in the defense of Grokster in this case. Links to EFF news and opinion: Supreme Court Reverses Grokster, Endangers Innovation, Supreme Court Ruling Will Chill Technology Innovation, Supreme Court Sows Uncertainty (good summary of the issues), What is “Inducement”?, Unavoidable Inducement?, Fear Mongering, Clarifying Inducement: How Is Patent Law Relevant?, and Clarifying Inducement: What’s the Remedy?.

Some (balanced and not-so-balanced) news coverage: BBC News, BusinessWeek, CNET News.com, CNN, Financial Times, San Francisco Chronicle

And now my reaction:

My first thought on this ruling was who cares? If Grokster was telling people “Hey, come here and get your illegal files!” then they got what they deserved. Then I remembered Gutenberg and his printing press. Peer-to-peer technology cannot be shut down in its infancy without destroying who knows what advances in civilization. The ruling certainly means P2P software creators are going to have to downplay the fact that the technology can be used for illegal purposes. Indeed, any P2P technology — or any technology, for that matter — can be used for illegal purposes.

Is this ruling the end of peer-to-peer sharing? I have to admit I haven’t made up my mind on this one yet. If you’re writing about this issue, feel free to send me a trackback.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

One Comment → “MGM v. Grokster case returns to district court”


  1. shorty114

    Jun 28, 2005

    I don’t even know why the companies keep trying to fight against P2P sharing… you can’t stop progress. People will continue to engage in P2P sharing, because it’s free whereas buying the movie costs ~20 US $.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2010 Homeland Stupidity.