Ravenwood - 06/28/05 06:30 AM
The SCOTUS is trying to put the file-sharing genie back into the box. They have basically ruled that there is no legitimate use for file sharing software. If you swap files, you must be breaking the law. This is a departure from the 1984 case that almost killed the VCR, where the SCOTUS ruled that since the VCR had substantial legitimate uses, manufacturers could not be sued for illegal misuse.
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.Change "file-sharing services" to "gun manufacturers" or and you'll see why this decision stings. When a thief uses a coat hanger to break into your car, you don't sue the guy that made the hanger. In an age where bolt cutters are considered "burglary tools", the test for whether or not a primary use is legitimate vs. illegitimate seems a little tenuous.The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.
The same should hold true for file sharing. By this logic, other file sharing utilities could also be considered illegal - floppy drives, portable hard drives, online storage, instant messenger, and any other utilities that provide for the sharing of computer files.
It's not really as bad of a decision as you stated. The Supreme Court held that software developers are violating federal law when they create file sharing applications and then also take “affirmative steps to foster infringement.”
The important part is the last phrase. This means that developers like the creator of Bittorrent is safe because he never promoted his software for illegal purposes. He specifically created it for sharing large files.
However, this will stop people like Grokster and Kazaa that specifically make statements about being able to find "any song you want". It is clear that these companies/individuals clearly promoted their software for sharing illegal files.
That said, I still dislike the ruling. The maker of a product should not be liable for the use of the product. This is the same thinking that makes some people want to sue gun makers. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
As someone else said, somewhere else, this would only apply to gun manufacturers if they started advertising how efficiently the latest model of pistol would allow you to kill rival gang members, or hold up 7-11s.
Popular media is a horrible place to get info on SCOTUS rulings. Whatever you're reading is being filtered through someone who went through journalism school, after all, not law school.
Posted by: Jay Kominek at June 28, 2005 12:13 PMI've never met a law school graduate who didn't have contempt for individual liberty. Their expertise is useless to a free people.
This is not to defend journalists, Jay, simply pointing out the fire next to the frying pan.
Posted by: Brett at June 28, 2005 1:48 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
