29 Mar 2005
The US Supreme Court will begin hearings today on MGM Studios v Grokster, a dispute that could make peer-to-peer (P2P) software impossible to use.
The case is to decide whether companies that develop P2P software are liable if it is used to share pirated media. MGM lost the original case in 2003 and the appeal at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals last August.
"For the past century, copyright litigation in this country has been an endlessly repeating cycle," said Michael Page of law firm Keker & Van Nest, counsel for Grokster.
"Time and again, the corporations that control both artistic content and the current method of distributing that content ask the courts to protect them against new and better technologies by banning those technologies.
"Time and again, the courts have refused to extend the copyright monopoly, and have allowed new technologies to develop and mature to the benefit of artists, the public and the very corporations that sought to ban them."
If Grokster, and co-defendant StreamCast Networks, lose the case they will face huge legal action from recording and movie studios, as will other P2P software developers.
The companies would conceivably have to pay a fine for every piece of copyrighted media shared over the P2P networks.
The case hinges on interpretation of the 1984 Betamax case over the video recorder, when the courts ruled that the devices were "capable of substantial non-infringing uses" and stopped any attempts to ban the technology.
Action against P2P networks has attracted fierce protest and this case is no exception. Mark Cuban, the billionaire behind Broadcast.com, has pledged in his blog to cover Grokster's legal costs.
"We want our content to get to the customer in the way the customer wants to receive it, when they want to receive it, and at a price that is of value to them," he writes.
"If Grokster loses to MGM in the Supreme Court technological innovation might not die, but it will have such a significant price tag associated with it [that] it will be the domain of the big corporations only."
Latest stories from Public Sector
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What will be the biggest change to corporate technology in the future?
TFL director of Games transport Mark Evers discusses how the public transport network is preparing for this summer's event
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Recruitment Consultants – IT (City of London - £20-£30k...
C++, SQL, Windows My Client is a prestigious technology...
Java Developer, Java Agile Developer Java, Agile...
Customer Insight Analyst- SAS/ SQL/ SPSS Key Words...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
duty of copyright owner
If a disc is no longer being manufactured. Because it is no longer in demand, can the consumer demand of the company to produce that disc.if the company refuses,surely the copyright is void.Likewise if a radio or television station refuses to sell copies of any of their shows,(that they are not re-broadcasting} Is their copyright stil viable. I think it has been determined that if an invention is patented,it must be produced or licensed for production. A copyright or patent is given so the owner can make money.If there is no attempt to put the invention on sale, the patent is void. For example there are many great classical recordings that have been replaced by newer recordings,and are no longer available. I do not think any court would decide that there would be an infringment in these cases if they were downloaded,as the copyright owners are not interested in selling them.
Posted by: Reuven Ben-Daniel 25 Dec 2005