Much of Wilson's ruling hung on the technological differences between Napster and the newer, decentralised file-swapping services. Napster's service opened itself to liability for its users' actions by actively playing a role in connecting people who were downloading and uploading songs -- a little like a physical swap meet provides the facilities for people exchanging illegal material, the judge said. By contrast, Grokster and Streamcast distributed software to people and had no control over what their users did afterwards, Wilson said. When users search for and initiate transfers of files using the Grokster client, they do so without any information being transmitted to or through any computers owned or controlled by Grokster," Wilson wrote. "Neither Grokster nor StreamCast provides the site and facilities" for direct infringement. "If either defendant closed their doors and deactivated all computers within their control, users of their products could continue sharing files with little or no interruption." It didn't matter that the companies were aware generally of copyright infringement happening using their software, Wilson added -- they would have to know of specific instances of infringement and be able to do something about it, to be liable for those users' actions. That stands in stark contrast to an earlier ruling against file-swapping company Aimster, in which the judge explicitly said the file-trading company did not need to know about individual acts of copyright infringement as they were happening to be held liable for the illegal activity. Friday's decision is likely to send shock waves throughout the copyright and technology communities, which have adjusted slowly over the last year to the notion that file-trading services such as these were probably illegal. Technology companies have complained that the repeated lawsuits have stifled innovation, but many also have begun to move forward in alliances with authorised music and film-distribution services. The case will certainly be appealed. Because different courts have come to very different conclusions about the law, the issue could go as high as the US Supreme Court, a process that would likely take years. "This is far from over," said Fred von Lohmann, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney who has represented Streamcast in the case. "This is not the end, but it sends a very strong message to the technology community that the court understands the risk to innovation." In the interim, the ruling is likely to produce another round of interest in legislation affecting copyright issue on the Net -- an outcome that Wilson himself foresaw. Policy, "as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials," Wilson wrote. "Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the raised permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology... Additional legislative guidance may be well-counselled." News.com's Lisa Bowman contributed to this report.
See the MP3/P2P News Section for the latest on everything from MP3 players to Napster and the other file-swapping services.
Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.
Talkback
THEN WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL GETTING SUED ?
The software's legal. You're just not allowed to use it.
The music industry feels it is getting ripped off, and stolen from? Well thats exactly how i feel as a consumer. I am supposed to feel sympathetic to an industry that offers me a cd for $25 that has 2 good songs and 15 songs of crap? Bring the price down and sell by volume, the price of a cd hasnt come down in 20 years. The millionaire artists are upset because their intellectual property is being distributed out of there control. To bad,Then go on tour make your living from concerts, and work for a living, like everyone else. Free, or 12.50 a song do the math. Bring the price of the cd down to somthing reasonable like $5 and make it more appealing. The internet is not going away, and making criminals out of people who cant afford to buy a cd is not the answer. Industry changes all the time, it adapts or dies.. the music industrys free ride is over, they need to understand that, and move on.Ttake the millions youve effortlessly made off others talent, and be happy you were in on the scheme.