Hello
General
Toys
Other
Blog Archives
Super Links
Copyleft

Unless otherwise stated, all original content on this site is licensed under your choice of the GNU FDL or the Creative Commons ShareAlike License.

GNU FDL Creative Commons License

Validate

Hopefully, this website is valid. You can check the XHTML, the CSS, and the RSS.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS Valid RSS

Stats

Hurray for the EFF!

the EFF logo

The EFF has won Grokster v.s. MGM! This is an exciting, landmark victory for peer-to-peer networks. In short, the ruling means that the people who write peer-to-peer software that runs decentralized networks such as Gnutella cannot be held liable for copyright infringement that takes place on those networks.

The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player.Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from 464 U.S. at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972)).