MBM VS. Grokster

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] If you don't know what this case is about:

[i]It's called MGM Studios vs Grokster, for short, and it's the appeal by the entertainment industry to reverse lower court decisions that sided with peer-to-peer file-sharing companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks (makers of Morpheus), saying neither company was liable for the actions of its users.
On the MGM side you'll find representatives of most of the major entertainment food groups, including film, TV and the recording industry. And their argument pretty much hasn't changed since the RIAA went after the original Napster five years ago - that file-sharing is evil and any company that provides technology that allows one user to swap a copyrighted work with another should be smitten from the face of this earth.
Meanwhile, on the P2P side, both Grokster and StreamCast are sticking by the argument that got them this far - that P2P file-sharing has legitimate, non-infringing uses and should not be exiled to the Phantom Zone just because a few people decide to take advantage of the technology to grab a few tunes and/or flicks for free.
Of course, the rotten apples threatening to spoil the file-sharing bunch pretty much make up the majority of P2P usership. Most of the millions of users Grokster and StreamCast count as customers are hardly swapping photographs from their last summer vacations or distributing original songs cooked up in the garage. In fact, one of the entertainment industry's arguments against P2P companies goes along the lines that if P2P users weren't storing copyrighted material in their "shared" directories, file-sharing would hardly be the phenomena it is today.
Meanwhile, as the clock ticks down to a Supreme decision, you can expect both sides to file briefs and issue statements claiming they're right and their opposition wrong.
Like, for instance, the brief favoring the P2Ps recently filed by 17 computer science and engineering professors representing nine universities. The professors expressed concern the court might reinterpret the landmark 1984 Sony Betamax case that ruled Sony could not be held liable for any copyright infringing activities committed by users of the company's video cassette recorders, mainly because the Betamax had many non-infringing uses.
Sound familiar?
The brief also said a decision favoring the entertainment industry might hamper future technological development.
"If this court should announce a more restrictive rule, those who create the latest advances in technology will halt or significantly scale back their work, for fear of massive copyright infringement damages," the professors stated.
The nut of several of the technological companies' stance is that, before developing a new product, a company would have to examine any and all possible copyright infringing activities that might arise due to the existence of the product.
In other words, the tech side of the argument fears the copyright liability burden will be placed squarely on their shoulders - a heavy weight, for sure.
But the professors weren't the only ones filing briefs on the Grokster/StreamCast side. Several recording artists, including Chuck D, Heart and Sananda Maitreya (the artist formerly known as Terence Trent D'Arby), filed their own brief supporting the P2P companies.
However, if there's anybody who knows how to shape opinion, it's the entertainment biz, and both the movie and recording industries answered the various P2P supporting briefs with a few of their own.
In response to certain artists siding with Grokster and StreamCast, the Recording Artists' Coalition issued a statement saying that although the P2P-friendly artists were within their rights to express their opinions, "it is unfortunate when artists are seduced into believing that unauthorized P2P systems benefit our society and artists' careers."
The RAC's statement, which was backed by a veritable who's who list of artists, also address claims made by what it calls "partisan advocates of P2P services" and disagrees with allegations that many artists are against new technologies, saying "nothing could be further from the truth."
"The vast majority of recording artists welcome the day when P2P systems and other technologies offer uninhibited and direct distribution of their work to the public, while at the same time respecting artists' demands for fair remuneration for their work and respect for their rights." RAC's statement said.
"We look forward to the upcoming debate, and are confident that once exposed to the facts, these artists will realize they have been used in an unseemly way to promote the interests of those who care the least about the well being of artists and our culture,"
Despite all the rhetoric from both sides, the issue before the Supreme Court is liability. If a person allows other people to download a copy of Million Dollar Baby from his or her hard drive, should the user be held liable, or should the blame be put on the company that manufactured and distributed the software that made such an infringement possible?
That is what the Supreme Court will have to address come March 29th. [/i]

-http://www.pollstar.com

Mostly, I'm afraid that the Betamax case will be overturned (a case that protects technology (or any device) that can be used for copyright infringement, as long as it is used for substantial noninfringing purposes). If it is...I think I'll die. Wouldn't it mean that Apple and the iPod will sink? All file-sharing services will mostly die, not to mentions other things such as CD burners and all that good stuff. I haven't researched it thouroughly, so if anyone knows a lot about, I would love clarification. *o* [/color]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='Lunox][color=darkslateblue']Wouldn't it mean that Apple and the iPod will sink? All file-sharing services will mostly die, not to mentions other things such as CD burners and all that good stuff. I haven't researched it thouroughly, so if anyone knows a lot about, I would love clarification. *o* [/color][/quote]

Apple makes a hell of a lot of sales through iTunes, regardless of the more iffy P2P systems. There's also a lot of people who mostly rip their own CDs for their MP3 players (such as myself). I severely doubt it would have much of an affect on that at all, especially since there are always alternatives to the more well-known P2P software.

I use my CD burner for burning things from MP3s probably 5% of the time I burn a CD. I doubt that would be affected much either. Who knows if sales would decrease, but the idea of either of these "dying" is a bit overdramatic, I think.

[Leofski]

the serious implication of the case is not what would happen to current users but the precedent it would set if MGM won, allowing any legitimate system that could be used by pirates to have action taken against it in the future. Since this means almost anything online, the possibilities are enormous.