Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

P2P case to be tested in Supreme Court?

8 October 2004 15:52 by Jari Ketola | 6 comments

Hollywood movie studios and record companies have asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn an earlier ruling which found file sharing companies not liable for copyright infringements carried out by using their software.

Both MPAA and RIAA signed the petition in which they said that if the ruling remains, the value of copyrighted work will be badly undermined.

"This is one of the most important copyright cases ever to reach this court," the groups said in papers filed with the court. "Resolution of the question presented here will largely determine the value, indeed the very significance, of copyright in the digital era."

Centralized P2P services, such as Napster, have been forced to shut down by the recording industry before, but in August a federal appeals court upheld a ruling from April 2003 stated that Grokster Ltd, Streamcast Networks Inc (Morpheus). and Sharman Networks Ltd (Kazaa) are fundamentally different from, for example, Napster. By manufacturing a software that enables people to exchange files doesn't make them liable for the copyright infringements carried out by the users.

"There is no reason the Supreme Court should review the (lower court's) decision," Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "That case was based on the principles established in the 1984 Betamax case, which has led to the largest and most profitable period of technological innovation in this country's history. Consumers, industry and our country have all benefited as a result."

The entertainment industry, however, feels that P2P software companies should have a responsibility to design their software in such a manner that illegal content can be filtered out.

In reality the demands are based on the fact that it might be technically possible. Yet it is nevertheless just as absurd as demanding VCR manufacturers to make devices that cannot record movies.

Something is seriously wrong.

Source: News.com

Permalink to this article

InternetMovies.com may take MPAA to the Supreme Court (29 December 2004)

Red Cross caught up in P2P mess (17 December 2004)

RIAA sues 754 more people (17 December 2004)

Supreme Court to reconsider the P2P case (11 December 2004)

Witnesses claim Kazaa can filter its network (2 December 2004)

Kazaa denies recording industry claims in day 2 of trial (30 November 2004)

Kazaa trial begins (29 November 2004)

MPAA launches its attack against P2P users (17 November 2004)

StreamCast asks Supreme Court to reject RIAA/MPAA requests (9 November 2004)

Supreme Court rejects RIAA appeal (12 October 2004)

P2P networks not liable for copyright infringement (19 August 2004)

Grokster and Morpheus should implement filters (4 February 2004)

Grokster-Morpheus P2P case back in court (2 February 2004)

Streamcast (Grokster, Morpheus) victorious in court (25 April 2003)

« Previous news article
Australian court rejects Sharman's appeal

Next news article »
Microsoft apologizes for iPod comments

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
Dela (Staff Member) 8 October 2004 23:40
Here we go again! You know I can remember something! Remember when the recording industry was cbitching at us about 10+ years ago??? The BIG problem that was going to DEMOLISH the music industry and make the world completely musicless???? RECORDING SONGS TO TAPE FROM THA RADIO!!! But wait, nothing changed :S [ + quote]
Actuator (Inactive) 11 October 2004 14:55
This is like asking the United States Supreme Court to hold gun companies liable for murders carried out by using their guns. This is not an important copyright case as the group claims it is. It is the most unimportant case, and it is a wast of the Supreme Courts time to even consider it. [ + quote]
master777 (Inactive) 13 October 2004 9:37
Hi my name is Adam the RIAA and other people trying to shut down people who download games, music, movies and applications are very dumb. how many people have bought a cd movie, game , or software from a store gave it to a friend to listen or use and give back to you. right here im rasing my hand is there anything wrong with that. NO THERE IS NOT. now how many people buy somthin put it on the internet to share with someone else a CRAP LOAD these people say thats wrong. why I bought it or you bought it it was paid for so why cant I share. there should be nothing wrong with that. If I can buy somthin and share it with a friend and not get in trouble with it then I should be able to buy somthin put it on the internet for people to use and not get in troble for it. See these people all they want is money there scared so they go after us. let me know what you got to say thanks Adam T. [ + quote]
hearliam (Newbie) 7 December 2004 23:49
Wait until everybody has high speed broadband, they will be sharing movies, music and other stuff through email, are they going to inspect our mail now, I thought it was ILEGAL to open peoples mail. Maybe then we will take them to court for invading our privacy. [ + quote]
jpc1958 (Inactive) 12 December 2004 6:08
Here's another link to a story about this on the Forbes website. http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/2004/12/10/cx_ah_1210grokster.html Let's hope reason rules the day. Sony already made the case for the Betmax back in the early 80's. You can't sue the company for someone who tapes copyrighted material, therefore, P2P networks are the "virtual Betamax" in this case and the court must be compelled to find that the P2Ps can't be held accountable for illegal use of their network. Can GM be sued if someone robs a bank and uses a Chevy as their getaway car? Ridiculous, isn't it? My 2 cents... [ + quote]
thedevil6 (Newbie) 18 December 2004 13:24
Here we go again! You know I can remember something about 321 and there software the recording industry all most put them out of Business its time to shut down hollywood by not buy buying from them [ + quote]