The Grokster case — possible outcomes... [updated version]
The New York Times writes:The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously today [27/6 2005] that Internet file-sharing services like Grokster and StreamCast Networks could be held responsible if they encouraged users to trade songs, movies and television shows online without paying for them.The verdict is that the case thus can go back to lower court for proper trial. The justices' main argument is that there was enough evidence that the prosecuted Web services were seeking to profit from their customers' use of the illegally shared files spread through these networks.
In other words, a field day for Big Business — the established American movie- and music industry — which has argued persistently not only that online sharing of content severely harms their profits (an argument that is intrinsically hard to prove and duly has been disproved in several scientifical papers), but also that file-sharing ultimately could inhibit the creation of new content (which, of course, is simply untrue). So the bullies of the game keep smiling self-righteously while get a temporary advantage position in the continued struggle.
Cnet lists the prospective winners and losers of this slightly new situation; they conclude that licensed music and mp3 retailers are a winning bunch, with digital music sales probably continuing to soar, whereas mainstream file-sharing networks like eDonkey, LimeWire and Kazaa as well as mp3-only devices like today's iPods will lose out.
Obviously, these news report only address the mainstream, big-money networks out there. For more noncommercial/smaller/underground networks, the Supreme Court ruling is likely to have less of an effect. As New York Times once again writes,
there was some relief expressed among lawyers and advocacy groups aligned with Grokster, in that the Supreme Court seemed to clearly focus its attention not on the legality of peer-to-peer technology itself, but on the behavior of players seeking to make a profit from the technology [emphasis added].read more (NY Times)
read more (Digital Music News)
read more (Cnet)
Added 28/6 2005, afternoon update:
Allow me to quote Swedish law and IT specialist Nicklas Lundblad, who points out that the ruling was one that essentially underlines how companies that knowingly support their customers to infringe on copyright law (and thereby indirectly breaking the law themselves) should be banned from doing so. In line with this, Lundblad argues, BitTorrent as a technology should not be outlawed (since its originator Bram Cohen neither contributorily nor vicariously has infringed on copyrights), whereas tracker sites definitely might be made illegal (they might well be already):
Probably our focus on Grokster was superfluous: the case is not the principal one we believed it to be, but a rather simple proceeding. And that it would be a blow against file-sharing is probably wrong too: what has happened is that companies that have gained from infringing the copyright of others have been condemned for this business model (which has been explicit and conscious).read more [Swedish only]
The important part is this: it won’t become possible to outlaw file-sharing technology per se, nor the development of this technology. And [as pointed out above in this liquidculture posting] when there are no commercial businesses to refer back to the ruling becomes entirely irrelevant.
The music industry probably celebrates this as a victory just because there is so little else, that goes well for them.
posted by Jonas Andersson @ 4:23 pm
<< Home