In an effort to save "billions of dollars" music and movie giants are looking to the Supreme Court to set Peer-to-peer services like Grokster and StreamCast Networks straight. On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard arguments from representatives of major film studios and the recording. The case began when MGM and several record labels filed suit against StreamCast Networks and file-sharing network Grokster, arguing that they were intentionally created to allow people to illegally trade copyrighted material. That case was thrown out by a circuit court in August, paving the way for it to be argued in front of the Supreme Court.
Justices appeared divided, both worried that new lawsuits could stunt the next iPod, and also deeply troubled by what they see as Grokster's efforts to encourage rampant Internet piracy and profit from it. However they rule, it's unlikely to solve internet copyright issues once and for all, observers say reports AP
This sort of thing is out there now and you can't go - and I may be wrong about this - but I don't think you can go into people's homes and pull (software) out, or that anybody's likely to do that," said Theodore Olsen, a former U.S. solicitor general representing big media. "But it would be an important statement; an important point here is to stop the worst of the activity, stop the people who are making money."
Harold Feld of the nonprofit public-interest law firm the Media Access Project said it was not clear how the justices felt about the services.
Richard Taranto, the lawyer for software-maker Grokster Ltd., told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that modern file-sharing tools like Grokster's are "autonomous communications products,'' underscoring the evolution of such software since the entertainment industry's landmark victory in July 2001 shutting down the centralized Napster online service.
"The scale of the whole thing is mind-boggling," argued recording industry lawyer Donald Verrilli. "They intentionally built a network of infringing users."
"The justices didn't appear to be happy about what the movie and recording industries were asking for," said Feld. "They're asking for a rule [requiring that] a substantial amount of the technology is not infringing, [and] if it is mostly used for infringing, then the company should be held liable. But in [a 1984 case involving Sony and VCRs] the Supreme Court said that if you have a technology that is capable of infringing and noninfringing uses, then you can't hold the maker of the technology liable for the infringing use."
Grokster lawyer Richard Taranto argued that they have "growing legitimate uses" and that hundreds of thousands of files that are not subject to copyright are available for trading on them.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Taranto whether it is right to use money generated by selling stolen property to help finance an emerging technology. "That seems wrong to me," Kennedy said.
