File-sharing suffers major defeat

[zz5]

"File-sharing suffers major defeat":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm

I don't really care that much about file-sharing because I feel like that's sort of a bonus. What's really bad about this ruling is that it apparently reverses the 1984 Betamax ruling which is the basis for why we're able to record TV today.

[Kanati]

Not only that, but it opens the doors for lawsuits to ANY technology that could POSSIBLY allow duplication of copyrighted material... DVD burners, photocopiers, VCRs, etc. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is going to be the target of DRM chips now.

It's insane that the supreme court would overturn and do a complete 180 on all lower court decisions. The MPAA and RIAA must have tossed a ton of lobbying money at the justices... When did the court system go from their job of upholding and interpreting laws to making them?

Something in this idiotic country had better change or I'm moving to the moon to live in peace.

[stanger89]

You should read some more then

Originally Posted by Justice David Souter

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses,

The distinction being that in the Betamax case, Beta wasn't marketed for illegal uses.

Plus, they didn't actually rule on if Grokster itself is liable:

Despite Monday's decision, the battle over file-sharing is far from over. The Supreme Court order sends the Grokster case back for retrial to the same lower court that had ruled for Grokster and StreamCast Networks.

More:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/tech...reut/index.htm

[spockware]

this latest ruling the judges ... means the makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if they use it to break the law.

Not to get off-topic, but...

This could have outreaching affects on other rulings like whether or not the firearms industry is liable for some idiot committing a crime with a gun they manufacture. Heck! What about knife manufacturers and slashers! Is Buck liable if a murder is committed with a buckknife they make?

Come on! Individuals need to be held accountable here, not the manufacturers/innovators.

[Menehune]

I'd like to see a car maker sued when one of their cars is used in a robbery. Or home depot and u.s.pipe sued when a person is hit over the head with a galvanised pipe and killed. I won't hold my breath though.

[tybris]

Yeh, lets all blame Einstein for the cold war.

Sometimes I think the American law system was written down on the back of a coaster after a long night at a bar. This is almost as disastrous as software patents (although I fear for the future of Europe aswell on that subject).

[Kanati]

You a brit tybris? If so I was just wondering how that software patents vote turned out over there.

[Ryokurin]

Originally Posted by spockware

Not to get off-topic, but...

This could have outreaching affects on other rulings like whether or not the firearms industry is liable for some idiot committing a crime with a gun they manufacture. Heck! What about knife manufacturers and slashers! Is Buck liable if a murder is committed with a buckknife they make?

Come on! Individuals need to be held accountable here, not the manufacturers/innovators.

Does Smith and Wesson market their guns as an effective tool to rob a bank? NO! they sell it for protection or recreation. The only thing that the supremes said that if someone came up with a client and specifically promoted or implied that you can use it to transfer or receive copyrighted material then they can be held liable for it. Bittorrent for example is marketed as a way to transfer files efficiently, be it a linux distribution, or an illegal movie is not its call. Sure it can be used for that but thats not what it was designed for. Rest assured that if sony originally sold Betamax as a tool to copy movies it would have been stopped dead in its tracks.

[stanger89]

Yeah, if you read the ruling, it's basically a show of one stupid move after another on the part of Grokster/StreamCast. Basically, right from the beginning they marketed themselves as a replacement for Napster. Well Napster was shut down/found liable for their infringement/infringement by their users, and being as Grokster/StreamCast's express purpose was the same as Napster's, they really didn't have a leg to stand on.