Filesharing Review > Grokster loses

Neil's World - Not the world you expectedhttp://www.neilturner.me.uk [Neil's World - Not the world you expected] As I understand the ruling (which is a light read at only 24 pages), it will not affect computer or MP3 players, because unlike Grokster or Streamcast, Apple and Dell are not convincing people to buy their products by suggesting that they give access to a wide variety of illegal content. The reason that Grokster and Streamcast lost the case is because they began their P2P networks by advertising to Napster users that their new networks would take the place of Napster, allowing them to download even more copyrighted music.

Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

http://www.sandstorming.com [sandstorming.rev.2.0] Grokster Loses to MGM: Grokster was brought by 28 of the world’s largest entertainment companies against the makers of the Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA filesharing software products in 2001. The entertainment companies hoped to obtain a legal precedent that would hold all technology makers responsible for the infringements committed by the users of their products.

:: Software Journal :: Software News and Reviews[ :: Software Journal :: Software News and Reviews] The Ruling of Supreme Court in the P2P Technology Case: The Justices said that both Grokster and StreamCast promoted their services as replacement of the busted Napster File Sharing Network. Justice David Souter said in the court’s opinion: “Grokster and StreamCast’s efforts to supply services to former Napster users, deprived of a mechanism to copy and distribute what were overwhelmingly infringing files, indicate a principal, if not exclusive, intent on the part of each company to bring about infringement.”

[Technology & Marketing Law Blog] What Happens to BitTorrent After Grokster?: It appears that Justice Breyer and two others would definitely excuse a product like BitTorrent as there is a substantial non-infringing use (etree). One presumes that Justice Souter and two others probably would, or else they would have followed Justice Ginsburg’s lead in promoting a version of Judge Posner’s Aimster balancing test.

[Scotusblog.com] SCOTUSblog: Grokster, StreamCast Lose: In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that even if sometechnology could be used to infringe on copyrights, it could not be guilty of contributing to that infringement if it was capable of "substantial non-infringing uses." The Court found that taping Mr. Rogers and "time shifting" were substantial non-infringing usesand saved the movie business from self-immolation.

News.com.comhttp://news.com.com [News.com.com] Judges rule file-sharing software legal | CNET News.com: When someone using StreamCast's Morpheus software searches for a file, the search request goes to another personal computer and ripples out through the network, like a rumor being whispered from one person to the next. When the correct file is found, a direct connection is made between the computers at the beginning and end of that chain--but StreamCast itself is never involved.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, , , ,