Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeFile sharing support arguments ludicrous
April 4, 2005 —
This is getting ridiculous.
I think it's safe to say that almost every single one of us has downloaded a song off a peer-to-peer network. When Napster came out, we all had it. Go around to the dorms or apartments of most of us, and you'll find something - anything that works, really - that allows for file downloading. Now, of course, it's illegal - and justifiably so. Except the creators of these networks - "P2P" for easier use - don't agree. And now, they're in the Supreme Court arguing their case, and the Court is actually listening.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put Napster out of business in 2001, finding that it was secondarily liable for the copyright infringement committed by its users. Coupled with federal legislation essentially making file sharing illegal, this opened a new can of worms, allowing groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to sue individual downloaders and, most recently, Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) Studios to sue the creators of Napster spin-off programs. The Supreme Court case at hand, which was heard on Tuesday, March 29, had MGM suing Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Networks, the makers of the popular P2P network Morpheus.
Here is where it gets interesting. The Federal District Court in Los Angeles, in a decision affirmed last year by the same court that killed Napster dead (or so we thought - it's back, but for a price to users), ruled that the networks were not liable because their services were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." The two cases were considered different. According to the Ninth Circuit - again the court that started this whole thing - this case differed because Grokster permits its users to share their files with one another directly, as opposed to the central computer server Napster worked through.
And here is where it gets ridiculous. MGM, of course, took it to the next and final step, the Supreme Court. The lawyers for the defense, though, somehow made a strong case to a surprisingly responsive Court, imploring the judges to look at all the possible uses of file sharing, not just how users are using the software. The defense argued that the broad definition of copyright infringement used to make decisions on file sharing could curtail innovation.
Justice David H. Souter, so technologically inept that he still drafts his opinions on legal pads - not that there's anything wrong with that - was apparently intrigued, asking the lawyers for MGM to imagine "a guy sitting in his garage inventing the iPod." Souter argued that the innovation of such things - toys, really - could be held back if MGM got their way.
"I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod," Souter said. "But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so." Showing the thought process of college students everywhere, he continued. "How do we give the developer the confidence to go ahead?" he asked. "On your theory, why isn't it a foregone conclusion from the outset that the iPod inventor is going to lose his shirt?"
The lawyers for the plaintiffs, backed by the Bush administration, asked the Court to look not at the possibilities of file sharing, but the actual "business model" of the two companies. They argued that the theoretical "noninfringing uses" of file sharing were not comparable to the "substantial" noninfringing use of the Betamax video recorder. In a landmark case in 1984, the Court determined that the VCR did not infringe on copyrights because it showed that substantial use. MGM's lawyers also answered a question from Justice Antonin Scalia centered around how long a company should be allowed to find such a "substantial" use, emphasizing that Grokster and StreamCast had "a business plan from Day 1 to capitalize on Napster."
Let's give the defense the benefit of the doubt and say for just one second that innovation could be hindered by a decision against them. Even if that were true - Souter's argument is solid, but I'm not buying it - it is clear that innovation was not what Grokster and StreamCast had in mind when creating their networks.
To be vague, ever since governments were established and the rebels to those governments made their moves, the same thing happens repeatedly. Rebel tries to get best of government by finding loophole; government finds out; rebel argues its case by claiming it was trying to accomplish something completely different from its original scheme.
The same theory applies here. Ever since the first user signed into Napster, all of these networks and their users have tried to infringe on countless copyrights by knowingly and illegally downloading files that should not be accessible. Yet when the government, the recording industry, the movie studios and whoever else has every imaginable right to be pissed caught on to this silly scheme, they claim that they're promoting innovation or something else impractical.
The fact remains that Grokster, StreamCast, Napster, and whoever else is doing this not for innovation, but for business. I agree with the big wigs at MGM and the RIAA - this is strict copyright infringement, and there is no plausible way it should be allowed. Small hindrance to innovation or not, continuing to even consider these ridiculous arguments is unacceptable.