Court tackles file-sharing
2005-03-30 09:43
Washington - The US Supreme Court turned up the volume on online music sharing on Tuesday as it heard evidence in the case of MGM versus Grokster.
The iconic entertainment company is suing the upstart maker of popular file-swapping software like Kazaa, which allows millions of music fans to swap copyrighted songs over the internet.
Though a ruling is not expected for months, justices questions to lawyers for both sides suggested that they were searching for a way to protect copyright holders without stifling software innovation and other new technologies.
The lawsuit is widely seen as the most important case for the entertainment industry since the Supreme Court's 1984 Betamax ruling, which rejected a bid by movie studios to block the Japanese firm Sony from selling video-cassette recorders that home users could use to make copies of films.
Outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, protestors from both sides lined sidewalks.
Black-T-shirt-wearing supporters of file-sharing carried signs proclaiming "Save Betamax" and "RIAA keep your hands off my iPod". Another group of 18 singer-songwriters from Nashville carried guitars and signs reading "Feed a musician. Download legally."
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has been fighting the issue of free internet downloads for several years.
Huge legal actions
The MGM-Grotsker case made it to the Supreme Court after a federal court in California ruled that under the Betamax precedent, the file-sharing networks could not be held responsible for copyright violations by their users, because the technology had "substantial" legal uses.
MGM, six other major studios, four major record companies and 25 000 music publishers claim that Grokster and co-defendant StreamCast Networks are responsible for the copyright violations, because they built their businesses by turning a blind eye to the millions of people using their software to make illegal copies of movies and music.
If Grokster and Streamcast lose the case, they will face huge legal actions from recording and movie studios, as will other person- to-person (P2P) software developers.
The companies would conceivably have to pay a fine for every piece of copyrighted media shared over the P2P networks.
Initial comments by the justices in Washington illustrated the legal complexity of the issue, media reports said.
Stifle innovation?
Justices asked lawyers for the entertainment companies whether suing the makers of software might stifle web innovation.
They also wondered aloud whether such lawsuits might have discouraged past inventions such as copy machines, video-cassette recorders and iPod portable music players - all of which can be used to make illegal duplications of copyrighted documents, movies and songs.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that the entertainment industry's position would mean that "I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."
Justice Anthony M Kennedy suggested that the software companies had founded a business model on the promotion of piracy.
"What you are suggesting is unlawful expropriation of property as a kind of start-up capital," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "From an economic standpoint and legal standpoint, that sounds wrong."
The justices proposed allowing the entertainment industry to go after software firms that advertise and encourage computer users to download copyrighted material through their software.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor referred to this as the "active inducement" rule and suggested that a software firm could be sued and put out of business if it attracted customers by touting its system as a way to freely duplicate copyrighted music.
Arguing for the recording companies and the movie industry on Tuesday, attorney Donald Verrilli said that the rule may be a step in the right direction but does not go far enough. - Sapa-dpa
- SAPA