FILESHAREING **newsflash**

[perry]

File-sharing services can be liable for music theft

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

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.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

At issue was whether the file-sharing services should be held liable even if they have no direct control over what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free. As much as 90 percent of songs and movies copied on the file-sharing networks are downloaded illegally, according to music industry filings.

The entertainment industry said it needed protection against the billions of dollars in revenue they lose to illegal swapping. Consumer groups worried that expanded liability will stifle the technology revolution of the last two decades that brought video cassette recorders, MP3 players and Apple's iPod.

Companies will have to pay music and movie artists for up to billions in losses if they are found to have promoted illegal downloading.

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

"There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," Souter wrote.

In the closely watched case, supporting the effort to sue the companies were dozens of entertainment industry companies, including musicians Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and the Dixie Chicks, as well as attorneys general in 40 states.

About 20 independent recording artists, including musician and producer Brian Eno, rockers Heart and rapper-activist Chuck D, supported the file-sharing technology to allow for greater distribution of their works.

Monday's ruling gives the entertainment industry another legal option to the more costly and less popular route of going directly after millions of online file-swappers believed to distribute songs and movies illegally.

It's unclear how much the decision will actually deter the widespread problem of piracy since software programs created abroad won't be subject to the tougher U.S. copyright laws. Still, analysts say the court's stern rebuke should provide a boost to many file-sharing services that offer legal downloading for a fee.

Industry observers have said a ruling against Grokster could also prompt stiffer enforcement from European regulators, who were watching the case for guidance on tackling copyright questions in their countries.

Recording companies in the United States have already sued thousands of individual users; at least 600 of the cases were eventually settled for roughly $3,000 each.

The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.

[Sean @ NDF]

so does that mean individuals are not responsible, its the companys that make the software?

[kotomile]

Just that the companies can also be held liable.

Sharman Networks is located off some island outside the US and can't be sued

[Sean @ NDF]

haha good planning on there part

[perry]

yeah... as far as i know... they're really only targeting the companies right now, not the individuals.

before, the companies skated by, saying "we dont promote the act of piracy... we arent responsible for what people do with our software... we dont have anyone of the pirated content on our servers... etc."

now the supreme court says, "tough shit, you gave them the tools... you're liable"

this basically means, look for all the US sites to shut down, and a bunch of other companies in other countries to start up.

[BRYCE]

hmmm

[89crxsi's Girl]

Though the supreme court can do whatever they pretty much please, I just don't think that it's fair. But then again any musician would argue with me for they just want to sell their music. Oh well! As long as I can download from somewhere I will be happy.

[tenchu]

Hmm. Sucks, WinMX is US-Based i'd assume, and its my favorite

[Bart-EK]

basically: the music industry doesn't suffer a lot from the illegal download crap... they SAY they do, but that's BS...

declining sales etc come from a worsening economy, worldwide (same shit here in Europe)

some canadian investigation showed that recently! I think it was like 3% at best and even that was debatable...

but it's an easy target for them... they need a scapegoat and in the end, it's still illegal... imagine telling people it's because of economy etc... unconsciously (sp?) that's telling people they are responsible... and you don't tell your customers they should buy more, in a time they seem to have less and less spending money as it is...

and because donwloading is illegal, people don't mind it beeing said


(f*ck, I hate marketing, but my rant is all about marketing techniques... LOL )

anyways... here in Holland downloading the crap isn't illegal... only uploading is... so I'm pretty safe for now... but there's this idiotic group here now who think they can do whatever they want and they're trying to get the internet providers to give up privacy information about the downloading customers, so they can sue those customers... but since they're a private organisation, there's no legal way for them to get the providers to give that info up... pretty entertaining discussion and all... too bad dutch government sucks and our legislators are stupid enough to let this organisation win... ah well... who cares... for me it's leeching only...

[.saint]

just shows musicans are in it for the money and not the music. they obviously know they make most of there money on tours people will go and see them! so they loose a few grand on cd sales they are still sitting on a few million w/tours. greedy fuckers seriously. true fans will buy albums. the whole case needs dropped, people are going to be downloading music untill the music industry falls flat on there face and that will never happen. they need to deal with it. hows come cd burners are not illegal?