[DMCA-Activists] Ninth Circuit Upholds Grokster et al.

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.boingboing.net/2004/08/19/eff_wins_grokster_so.html

Thursday, August 19, 2004
EFF wins Grokster! Software doesn't have to be easy for Hollywood
to wiretap!


I'm supposed to be on holidays from blogging this week, but this
is too important not to blog RIGHT NOW. 

EFF has won its Grokster case in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals -- this is the case that establishes that if you make
truly decentralized P2P software -- like Gnutella -- you can't be
held liable for any copyright infringement that takes place on
their networks. This is the "Betamax principle," from the famous
Supreme Court case that established that Sony wasn't responsoble
for any infringement that its customers undertook with their
VCRs. 

The Studios' argument was that people who make P2P software
should be obliged to build it in such a way as to make it easy to
police -- i.e. not on Gnutella-like lines -- an idea so
sickeningly dumb that it's a tremendous relief that the court
refused to buy it. 

Now is a good time to download the 16MB MP3 audio of EFF IP
Attorney Fred von Lohmann's oral argument in the appeal -- he was
nothing less than briliant (and it didn't hurt that one of the
shmendricks representing the rights-holders kept forgetting the
judge's name)
(http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040203_oral_arg.mp3).
This is some of the best courtroom drama you'll ever hear, and
when you're done, download the PDF of the decision below and
rejoice in our freedom.

I don't often shill for donations to EFF here on Boing Boing, but
if there is one day this year that you make a tax-deductible
donation to the organization that just won the right to write any
software you damn well please, even if it's not amenable to being
wiretapped by the record labels, today is it
(https://secure.eff.org/).

It's a good day. 

  "The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the
light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding
exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a
renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise.
Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners’
immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general
copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences
outside the present context. 

  "Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver
technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow
of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d
871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is
always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those
copyright owners whose works are sold through well established
distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and
market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests,
whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape
recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke
machine, or an MP3 player.Thus, it is prudent for courts to
exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the
purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their
apparent present magnitude. 

  "Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such
matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite
clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to
new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, “The
direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to
promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as
here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far
Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress.” 464 U.S.
at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S.
518, 530 (1972))." 

128k PDF Link:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20040819_mgm_v_grokster_decision.pdf

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.