Supreme Court Rules Against P2p Sharing

On Monday, June 27, 2005 in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, LTD., et al. the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a lower court against peer-to-peer file sharing software. The court stated that distributing a file sharing peer-to-peer software with the intent or purpose that it be used to violate copyright is illegal and the distributor is subject to legal action for the violations of the software's users.

For more information you can see the entire documetn released by the supreme court here.

~Viz

Very informative....But what country does this apply to?Most pirated software and things shared using peer to peer connections originate from europe.For example, isohunt.com doesn't need to follow laws passed inside Canada or the states.Or from what they say anyways...

If you ask me, this case is more significant in name than in practice. The case basically specifies that corporations can sue the distributers of P2P software that specifically promote the software's ability to download copyrighted material. This case is not about suing the creators of said P2P software, unless of course they advertise that it can be used to swap illegal files. I'm assuming the majority of people who are upset with this ruling either don't fully understand the ruling, or are somehow profiting from website distribution sites via advertising revenue. To me, this is a fairly reasonable decision. First of all, we all know that warez/mp3s/whatnot is copyrighted material and therefore illegal to trade/download. If we all know that it's illegal, then it's reasonable to expect people not to taut doing it (or how others can do it too, if they only just download this one application), especially on websites that attract thousands of hits per day. Hell, I know that if I do something illegal, I'm not going to broadcast it. And if I'm trying to motivate you to download a piece of my new P2P software, it's not that much to ask to refrain from saying "and you can break the law with it!" Instead, just tell what the thing does, and people will use it how they decide to use it. If they break the law, that's their own business, but if you tell them that they can break the law with it, well, then you're just stupid. It's not like gun manufacturers place "and you can kill people with it!" ads over their newest model.

 

And to answer your question spacewaste, any Supreme Court decision only impacts the US. However, the international body that covers piracy (INTERPOL) is usually a lapdog of the US anyway, so it might as well carry over to Europe as well.

well its basically always been that way.. we're just trying to make it not illegal lol..

On Monday, June 27, 2005 in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, LTD., et al. the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a lower court against peer-to-peer file sharing software.  The court stated that distributing a file sharing peer-to-peer software with the intent or purpose that it be used to violate copyright is illegal and the distributor is subject to legal action for the violations of the software's users.

 

For more information you can see the entire documetn released by the supreme court here.

 

~Viz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this the one I've heard on the news about US courts and people using programs from Internet Cafes and how Internet Cafes are liable? I find that document that you have provided us too long and too time-consuming to read, so i'm saving it for later and so I don't know about what you're saying yet. I thought that it was already that by law, I don't understand. Please explain.

 

 

 

Turiddu's post:

Yea, people just keep doing it even though it's against the copyright laws. I have no idea why this has been brought up again and again.

This is not the internet cafe case. This case dealt with creating and distributing file sharing (especially peer-to-peer) programs with the intent that they be or by promoting that they can be used for copyright violation.~Viz

And to answer your question spacewaste, any Supreme Court decision only impacts the US.  However, the international body that covers piracy (INTERPOL) is usually a lapdog of the US anyway, so it might as well carry over to Europe as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The international scenario is pretty much a hotch potch... the primary reason being... for interpol to take any sort of action.. a law broken must be common across borders... for example.. a person who has been observed smoking a joint and is escaping the law (U.S.) by travelling to the Netherlands (where possession of week is legal, but trading is illegal) will not be arrestable, or may not be extridited back to the continental U.S. But, for instance, this smae person decides to take a flight down to India, and entry is recorded at an airport/port, then since both India and the U.S. have common law regarding weed, the person gets busted and is shipped right back Stateside.

 

There's a lot of problems of the same nature with art... across the world, except in a few select countries, the theft of artwork is against the law. However, in Japan, although theft of art is illegal, purchase of stolen art is not illegal as long as the 'purchase of an artwork' is declared - after which, should there be no claim to the artwork as being stolen and therefore a petition to reclaim is made/ or not made.. the art officially becomes the rightful property of the buyer after a full year after the artwork has been bought.

 

Law concerning the internet is another area that is very hotly contested amongst interpol nations. For example, a lot of countries are not very happy with the internet law in India at present. Mostly when it comes to spamming. This is because in India, an e-mail is not considered to be spam if the sender's name is mentioned. Even if the e-mail sent out is unsolicited. India has off late become a hotbed for spammers because of this. The reason for this is democracy. In India, the common person has civil rights far more privlidged than in most countries around the world. The cost for this is that these rights may be taken away from an individual without any recourse by most authorities, by citing any of a verity of laws which allow for an arrest without a warrant, or holding a person without contact.

 

Getting back to P2P law, India considers the piracy of copyrighted material to be illegal, and there is heavy advertising in the country to educate the general public not to involve themselves in piracy. However, the use of P2P software is very strong, and nearly everyone this side of the world utilizes P2P software to search for and download files which may be copyrighted.

The key thing about the decision is it deals with how Grokster advertised itself, not what it actually DID. As in, P2P is not really mentioned. The reason grokster lost is because it sold its service by advertising its ease of use to do illegal things, making it (perhaps rightfully) of contributory copyright infringement. Seen in this light, the decision really helps both sides. The Betamax decision is left intact, and by extension, P2P itself. On the other hand, services built SPECIFICALLY to aid in the distribution of copyrighted works are liable. Which means that generalized P2P programs, clearly created to do any sort of distributed networking (such as bittorrent) should not be affected.Its a good decision overall, as far as I am concerned.

The key thing about the decision is it deals with how Grokster advertised itself, not what it actually DID.  As in, P2P is not really mentioned.  The reason grokster lost is because it sold its service by advertising its ease of use to do illegal things, making it (perhaps rightfully) of contributory copyright infringement.  Seen in this light, the decision really helps both sides.  The Betamax decision is left intact, and by extension, P2P itself.  On the other hand, services built SPECIFICALLY to aid in the distribution of copyrighted works are liable.  Which means that generalized P2P programs, clearly created to do any sort of distributed networking (such as bittorrent) should not be affected.

 

Its a good decision overall, as far as I am concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most p3p programs like Kazaa and Limewire will be the ones that can likely get affected by this ruling. Something like bittorrent stands in a different p2p program style, but maybe one day that too will be in court. First it was music, from Napster and sorts, now it's p2p programs. They really are making their way to jail these illegal distribution waves.

I really wish these companies would just give it up. There are too many countries and too many ways to relocate things for them to do anything about it. Are they going to send millions of people to jail?I think that if people really like a product, they will buy it anyway. The companies claim they lose millions, but it's only on people who buy the game, play it for 2 days, decide they don't like it, and are stuck with it. The company doesn't deserve their money if they didn't please the customer. That's my opinion at least.

ok my 2 cents...The whole problem with P2P software and "gov't regulation" is that how can they regulate and stop the distribution of such software. If they are able to shut down the public software companies that produce it then its gonna go underground and still be distributed through internation, non-US, servers. Untill the entire world gets on board and starts making such distribution methods illegal then a U.S. Supreme court ruling is kind of a joke.As far as a legal ruling that the production of a P2P program is illegal means that programers who like to make these programs will probably just redefine what the program does and change the way that it does it. Such as masking the fact that it is a P2P program as a e-mail program and make it so that it downloads lots of "emails" from anyonamous mail servers. This would require some serious set up but its just an example.Basicly it comes down to the fact that as long as there are those who want to use the software, and those who will make it, rulings of this sort are, while important, a bit of a joke.Now if ISPs will be able to get into the act then things might change, but thats still aways off. Most ISP's state that if you host anything illegal that they will shut you down, but honestly how many ISP take the time to go through all the sites hosted on their servers and check the sites they host.Well thats my 2 cents...

If I understand this correctly, the ruling by the Supreme Court still allows the use of P2P software, but it can't be advertised or marketed in such a way to promote copyright infringement. As a result, it seems pretty fair in the way it turned out. Software companies are now liable, but I don't feel this will affect the big picture. People will still find alternate methods to get what they want and in the end, copyrights will be infringed upon because its just too hard to enforce such a ruling.

I think this ruling is kind of fruity.Okay, so a company creates a program that allows peer to peer connections for the purpose of legal sharing of software. Someone comes along and takes that software and puts some illegal files into their "share" folder and people start distributing them, somehow the software creators are liable? They can't control how their program is used, all they have is good intentions.thta's like saying you could sue a car company if a car that was produced by them was used in a drive by shooting. It's just stupid.UNder this ruling, if a programmer was contracted to creat a piece of software that allowed a company to share files internally within it's country-wide intranet so that the company could distribute files to their employees in a peer-to-peer type of format, that programmer would be liable for any illegal files that were sent around within the company, becuase he was the one that created it? BULLall the supreme court has done has made it easier for companies to file frivilious lawsuits. =P more BULLAs a side note, if I as a programmer (although I am not) placed a disclaimer within the install legal agreement / startup menu thing, stating that "this program was designed for and created with the purpose of distrubting legal files that do not infringe upon any form of copyright. By using this software and distributing illegal files or files that infringe on anytype of copyright, you agree to accept any and all responsibility associated with breaking the law, and free the creator of this program from any responsibility that may lay with them." blah blah blah. something like that, would that free a programmer from any responsibilty, or does this ruling say that such a disclaimer doesn't matter?

As a side note, if I as a programmer (although I am not) placed a disclaimer within the install legal agreement / startup menu thing, stating that "this program was designed for and created with the purpose of distrubting legal files that do not infringe upon any form of copyright. By using this software and distributing illegal files or files that infringe on anytype of copyright, you agree to accept any and all responsibility associated with breaking the law, and free the creator of this program from any responsibility that may lay with them." blah blah blah. something like that, would that free a programmer from any responsibilty, or does this ruling say that such a disclaimer doesn't matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It might but it would really depend on the mood of the judge. TOU/TOC statements, while by law are enforceable are a bit tricky at times. As example, napster, when they got sued they had a similar statement at the beginning of their install but they still got sued and shut down till they started charging for the downloads.

 

I'm not really sure where this ruling is gonna lead but its an interesting step for the courts in-regards to this subject.

No matter how much they try and try to, they are never going to get rid of P2P FIle sharing. First it was Napster...then tehey were takin down, so someething had to full there place. Kazaa stepped up and then Kazaa was slowly taking down...There will be more Programs everytime once is takin down. Theres just no way to really control it, FREEDOM OF SPEECH