[DMCA-Activists] P2P United on 9th Circuit Grokster Decision

[Seth Johnson]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:    ADAM EISGRAU AUGUST 19, 2004

(202) 662-3726

P2P UNITED STATEMENT ON NINTH CIRCUIT'S "COMPLETE AND UTTER
REJECTION" OF ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES' CLAIM THAT DECENTRALIZED
PEER TO PEER SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS ARE COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS

CONGRESS URGED TO HEED COURTS ADVICE TO LET NEUTRAL NEW
TECHNOLOGY AND THE MARKET FIND ITS OWN "EQUILIBRIUM"  . . . .

WASHINGTON (AUGUST 19, 2004) ---   Adam Eisgrau, Executive
Director of P2PUnited – the Washington-based trade association
of the peer-to-peer technology industry representing the
developers of BearShare, Blubster, Grokster, eDonkey and Morpheus
P2P software – released the following statement on the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' stunning and complete affirmation today
of last Spring's Federal District Court ruling that such
developers do not infringe copyright by developing and
distributing their popular software programs used by tens of
millions of Americans:

"The Ninth Circuit's complete and utter rejection today of the
entertainment industries' attempts to warp long-standing,
pro-innovation copyright law into a weapon against peer-to-peer
technology and its developers is a profound and major victory for
the American consumer and our economy.   Critically, the court
cut through and rejected Hollywood's and 'Big Music's' propaganda
about peer-to-peer software and the P2P United member companies
sued in this case (Grokster and Streamcast) to find the truth:

∑ peer-to-peer software is not only capable of many important
and substantial non-commercial uses that do not infringe
copyright, but  is also used now for valuable commercial
purposes, as well;

∑ decentralized peer-to-peer software programs, like Grokster
and Morpheus, were built to and do comply fully with current
copyright law; and

∑ before the time-tested law set down by the Supreme Court in
the Sony Betamax case 20 years ago is changed, extreme caution
and care is required to avoid killing a revolutionary technology
in its cradle."

"While the court acknowledged that only Congress can make the
kind of radical change in copyright law that the copyright cartel
wanted in this case, it also clearly indicated that having the
power to make change does not mean that change should be made. 
P2P United respectfully urges every Member of Congress to heed
the court's strong advice that such radical change would be
'unwise' and, if they read no other part of the Ninth Circuit's
opinion, to take the court's following observations to
heart:                                                                          
 '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.'

'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.'

"The court is right and neither pending legislation nor more
litigation will make a market for the 21st Century that puts the
power of peer-to-peer technology to work for the public and for
the artists that multi-national copyright aggregators so
cynically claim to speak for."