Dissent

The ruling was 9-0

A final thought in the words of an internet blogger Madmax.

"They cant be held responsible, if that was the case then Microsoft should be held responsible also as they made the operating system  that allowed illegal files to be downloaded.."

madmax

CDFreaks Resident

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f83/march-29-grokster-v-mgm-supreme-court-case-132191/

Your Own Argument

My argument in the case MGMs. Groakster is that if a person decides to download material from another user or multiple users the guilty party for infringing on copyright laws is the end user who is doing the downloading. Just because a person or company creates a way or makes the material available to download does not make them guilty of anything. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they want to take a risk and download something they know is copyright protected thats their chance. If they get caught, well, they are in my own words "Fucked". (I know this is not a valid quote but wanted to quote myself)

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like." Justice William O. Douglas

I do think there is a responsibility that the provider of such material should have to disclose that the material about to be downloaded is copyrighted. Some sort of quick pop up window would be sufficient. Something that the up-loader has to click a box agreeing that they know what they are about to do is illegal.

This is a fine line that we are riding on, people are losing their ability to make decisions for themselves to the government and little freedoms of creativity are being lost everyday. Does this decision mean that if I write a fictional book or make a movie describing in detail how to murder or rape someone and a person takes this information I created, commits murder or rape I am guilty too? Yes, an extreme example but the same concept. Personal responsibility for ones-self is disappearing with court decisions such as this. Seems like just because something is made available by another if you a ignorant enough to use it to break the law only the law breaker should be guilty of the crime. Common sense to me but I guess lawyers and criminals need someone else to blame to in order to make money and stay out of jail.

"The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history.  At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home  and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." 

Potter Stewart  Source:Bartkus v. Illinois, 5 March 1961

Rule of law

Rule of law
The precedent that was set by the ruling is that it is illegal for copyrighted material to be downloaded over the internet in any way. If a user uses software designed by someone to “steal” such material both the user and the software that is the catalyst are guilty of copyright infringement. This decision took the case Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc, and turned it upside down. In the Betamax case the plaintiff, Sony, stated that the Betamax recorder allowed a user to copy programming off the T.V. and thus was stealing copyrighted material. The court ruled in favor of Betamax but it took years and by that time VCR's were in over fifty percent of american households. This case was the precedent for copyright stealing via recording or downloading until the ruling on MGM vs Groakster.

Interesting that the Betamax case was basically a delay tactic for Sony to introduce the VHS system and in the time that the case went through the entire legal process VHS had over a fifty percent market share in American households.

Now if a person decides to download copyrighted material they are guilty of copyright infringement.   Pamela Samuelson, has remarked, "The Sony decision is the most significant legacy of Justice Stevens in the field of intellectual property law and its significance is likely to continue in mediating disputes between copyright industries and creative information technology developers and users of information technology."

Sources: Harris, Paul. "Supreme Court O.K.'s Home Taping: Approve 'Time Shifting' for Personal Use." Variety (Los Angeles), 18 June 1984.

Reasoning of the Court

The court thought that the case was very similar to the Napster vs. A&M records and molded their business to capture users after Napster went to a pay site. As cited in the case documents this is a copy of an internal e-mail sent from a company executive: “We have put this network in place so that when Napster pulls the plug on their free service or if the Court orders them shut down prior to that we will be positioned to capture the flood of their 32 million users that will be actively looking for an alternative”

Grokster and Streamcast also developed promotional and advertising materials that stated they were the best Napster alternative. One proposed advertisement read: “Napster Inc. has announced that it will soon begin charging you a fee, that’s if the courts don’t order it shut down first. What will you do to get around it?”

The opinion of the court was that Grokster even planned to flaunt that its software was illegal and launched what it called an OpenNap network. Even it name was close to Napster. In the end Grokster trying to piggyback on the successes and failure of Napster and encouraging Napster users to use their site while not filtering the transmitted information for copyrighted material was the downfall of Grokster.

Decision of the court –

On Monday June 26th 2005 a unanimous decision was issued by the Supreme court in the case of MGM vs Grokster. The notice on their website said, "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners."

The decision was a very strong victory for the companies with copyright issues and will mostlikley set the president for the sites that allow copyrighted material to be downloaded over their software. This ruling also gives the recording industry and Hollywood movie companies immediate rights to file lawsuits against companies that continue to allow users to trade copyrighted files. Companies that will benifiet are the ones that allow users and subscribers access to be able to download music and movies over paid sited, such as iTunes and Amazon.
"I think the Supreme Court did the right thing, in a lucid way," said Rob Glaser, CEO of RealNetworks. "I think it will make a difference in the long slog to convert the industry over to legitimacy, by not allowing businesses to do this kind of nudge-nudge wink-wink marketing."

*NOTE: In my opinion, I read this quote and think to myself, it has changed nothing. It is easier for me to download anything now than it was back in 2005. The bit-torrent sites are not even deeper underground, all you have to do is type "download music" into google and in about 5 minutes you can download just about anything you want.

As of November 07, 2005 Grokster has not offered or allowed users to download anything over their site. The notice on their website said, "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners."

What Do I Think of the Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods

I stand with 2 different opinions on this subject. First when it comes to counterfeit hard goods and the trade in people I think we need to control ourselves as people in the temptation to buy these fake products at a discounted price. The consumer is the driving force behind it. I myself have fallen for the temptation on more than one occasion while traveling the world. I have multiple pairs of designer jeans and a Versace wallet I carry with me every day. Strange is that the quality is usually better with the fake goods. The wallet I bought for less than a dollar in a Bangkok market has lasted almost 2 years and seems to be getting better with age. The real Versace wallet I have fell apart in a year which caused me to buy the fake. Yea, governments and police can try and stop this but the amount of money and yearning for a better life it will never stop. Someone needs to think outside the box on the impossibilities of completely stopping the sale and trade of goods and materials similar of what needs to be done on the war on drugs.
With music I believe that the artists need to adapt and accept that this is going to be around. Yes, I will work in the industry but if I don’t adapt and fight this unwinnable battle I will be left wondering why I can’t make any money. Technology is ever changing and it is speeding up at an exponential rate so the companies and artists that are as fast will be the ones that succeed. Plenty of money is there for the taking but now maybe it will be spread out a little more for the clever.
These problems will be around forever so maybe its time to look for different solutions.

Issue of the case

The case of MGM vs Grokster is a suit filed by 28 different entertainment companies against file sharing companies such as Kaka and Morpheus. The entertainment companies say that peer to peer file sharing is illegal copyright infringement and is basically allowing users to steal material.

The Supreme court decided to take on this case and had a landmark ruling declaring that users of this software to illegally obtain copyrighted material is in violation of the law. They did fall short of forcing technology companies to redesign software programs to limit the downloads of copyrighted material. Grokster claimed that using many different people to download a single file was not illegal because they are not getting all the information as a whole from a single source. The uplolders are not providing an entire piece of material to the downloader so there is no infringement. The person in violation is the downloader not the companies that provide the software to assemble the pieces together.

During oral argument, Justice Souter expressed skepticism about this legal strategy:
"I don’t understand how you can separate the past from the present in this fashion. One, I suppose, could say, ‘Well, I’m going to make inducing remarks Monday through Thursday, and I’m going to stop Thursday night.’ The sales of the product on Friday are still going to be the result of inducing remarks Monday through Wednesday. And you’re asking [us], in effect,…to ignore Monday through Thursday."

MGM argued that Musicians, studios, artists, and writers were affected and losing money due to the platform of these websites. The expenses for recording and producing music, movies, and software are high and if people are allowed to simply download them the business will become bankrupt and no longer to be able to afford the costs to create.

In a rare unanimous (9-0) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a District Court and ruled in favor of MGM, sending MGM's case against the file-sharing service, Grokster, back to the lower court for trial.

In order to download the free client, users must now first agree to the statement "I will not use LimeWire for copyright infringement."

StreamCast developed promotional materials to market its service as the best Napster alternative. One proposed advertisement read: "Napster Inc. has announced that it will soon begin charging you a fee. That's if the courts don't order it shut down first. What will you do to get around it?"

Sources http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html