American court rules against file-sharing networks

[Chris]

In a surprise ruling, the US Supreme Court has decided that file sharing networks like Grokster and Morpheus are responsible for what people do with their software.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

It's a surprise because decades ago, a similar case involving video recorders came to the opposite conclusion, barring film and TV producers from pursuing the likes of Sony and JVC through the courts as home taping of shows became popular.

[Rob M]

Did the original case pursue Sony and JVC as the makers of the VHS tapes, the makers of the machines, or the providers of the technology though?

[Roy MM]

Makes you think any type of network sharing programs will stop now, if they are going to be held responsible for what others use it for.

[Chris]

Apaparently the case was against Sony, in 1984, and the Court held that the company was not liably simply because its Betamax video recorder could be used for piracy. It has stood as a legal precedent ever since.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4394371.stm

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Did the original case pursue Sony and JVC as the makers of the VHS tapes, the makers of the machines, or the providers of the technology though?

I think it was all three, but could be wrong..

[Rob M]

Perhaps the difference is that the recorders were designed to allow people to record the program for home use, the whole purpose of a file sharing network is that you share the files.....maybe.....

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Perhaps the difference is that the recorders were designed to allow people to record the program for home use, the whole purpose of a file sharing network is that you share the files.....maybe.....

Dunno, although there clearly must be a difference, in the minds of the judges, as they don't overturn precedent lightly. So far we only have the headlines, doubtless some poor hack will be reading the detailed ruling now and will post some analysis on BBC News before long.

It'll be really interesting to see details of the judgement as file sharing networks obviously have a legitimate use in the distribution of non or out of copyright materials.

[SMHarman]

Thats what I was thinking.

Surely a HDD/DVDR/CD and the technology to write to that are more akin to the Sony/JVC etc videotape case.

File sharing is the technologoical equivilant of taking these tapes (or HDDs/DVDs ) and putting them on a honour shelf in front of your house, or I suppose, putting them there with two VCRs and a pile of blank tapes for others to make copies.

[Tuftus]

Bummer, what happens next then?

What can they do about the millions of copies of software in use all over the world already?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

Bummer, what happens next then?

What can they do about the millions of copies of software in use all over the world already?

It's not that the software has been declared illegal. For P2P programs like Morpheous etc to work, there has to be a static network of core servers, the program joins on to the network. The ruling has made the owners of the networks (i.e. the makers of the software) legally responsible for what is transmitted across them.

What this means is that:

a) The record industry et al can now bring lawsuits to bear against the networks.

b) The network owners can no longer claim indemnity and will have to act to screen transmitted content.

[bmxbandit]

if bittorrent decentralised tracking takes off (which i strongly suspect it will), this will all be irrelevant fairly soon anyway, won't it...?

[Gareth]

This is a surprising result, and quite a saddening one imo too. Not because of the implications of my advanced viewing of episodes of 24 and Desperate Housewives, but because I honestly think that the Betamax ruling should have prevailed in this case too.

I think this case could be referred to in law books and lectures as much as the Betamax case currently is. All of a sudden, being responsible for something that was intended for legal use but is being used for illegal purposes means you're liable for prosecution.

Extending this further, I hope to see WalMart being prosecuted for selling bullets used in a hold-up, or Uzi being sued because they manufactured the gun that was used. The gun could have been used for legal purposes, but it wasn't, so the manufacturer should be held responsible now, and the supplier of the bullets is guilty now too.

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

What this means is that:

a) The record industry et al can now bring lawsuits to bear against the networks.

b) The network owners can no longer claim indemnity and will have to act to screen transmitted content.

And that also means a lot of network 'owners', who are charged as a result of this, handing over logs of IP addresses to 'cut a deal' ................

[Stuart C]

Trying to look at both sides of the arguement here (although I don't actually agree with the ruling).

I think the reason they ruled against the file sharing networks is simply because they are file sharing networks.

People have compared the ruling to the Sony Betamax ruling in the early 80s, and in some ways it's a valid comparison. However, if you record a program onto video then, unless you have a major duplication system, it would not be feasible for you to make large amounts of copies. You may be able to produce a few, but a few copies of a programme would not register on the piracy figures. You might be able to produce 5 or 10 copies at most.

With File sharing, by definition, it is different. You will produce one copy of a programme. However, you may have 20 people download that programme (effectively making their own copies) and they may each have 20 people download it from them. All of a sudden, from 1 copy, 420 people have illegal copies.