If you haven’t already heard, on Tuesday, March 29, the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments in MGM v. Grokster. The major record
labels claimed that peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies (P2P) should
be liable for the copyright infringement of their individual users. The
P2P companies argued that if they were to be held liable for infringement,
the currently open door of technological innovation would be left barely ajar.
By all accounts, the Justices were prepared and familiar with the
complex issues at stake in the case and asked probing questions of
both sides. According to a number of folks in attendance, Justices
were particularly concerned about the hypothetical inventor – the “guy
in the garage” – who may not move forward with an
invention if he/she might be sued for its use in infringing copyrights,
no matter the intent of the invention.
FMC has avoided taking a side in this case because we recognize that
musicians hold a whole range of opinions about copyright, file-sharing
and the internet. Look no further than the online survey that
we did in 2004 with the Pew Internet and American Life Project, in
which 2,700 musicians were asked a range of questions on these issues. It
was clear that musicians have embraced the internet as a way to create,
promote and distribute their work. But when it came to file-sharing,
about a third of artists were supporters of P2P, about a third were
opposed to P2P, and about a third were unsure.
Pew
Study here
A sampling of musicians’ comments
on file-sharing here show the range of opinions
Clearly, this case has generated a lot of news, as well as some predictions
about the outcome:
Lively Debate as Justices Address File Sharing
The much-heralded Supreme
Court showdown in the Grokster case between old-fashioned entertainment
and newfangled technology found the justices surprisingly responsive
on Tuesday to warnings from Grokster…that
a broad definition of copyright infringement could curtail innovation.
By
Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, March 30, 2005
The Grokster Case’s Silent Majority
Using no more than my laptop and any one of a hundred cheap or free
online services, I can be recording studio, record label, music store
and marketing machine.
By Chris Anderson, LA Times, March 30, 2005
Camping Out for the Grokster Case
Forget Star Wars premieres. A seat at the MGM Studios v.
Grokster Supreme Court hearing Tuesday morning was the hottest
ticket in town.
By Katie Dean, Wired, March 29, 2005
My Day with the Supremes
Bottom line on Grokster: I think the Court
is likely to affirm the basic idea of Sony – that you can’t sue a manufacturer or distributor
of a technology for copyright infringement if the technology has non-infringing
uses. But I also think they will remand and allow the RIAA to pursue
a claim for "active inducement" to infringe based on Grokster’s
conduct.
By Harold Feld, WetMachine Blog, March 30, 2005
Not an iPod
Grokster and StreamCast Networks are two of the latest
Napster-like file-sharing companies to send copyright holders into
a tizzy — and with good reason.
Editorial, Washington Post, March 30, 2005