Backed by powerful technology groups and a handful of artists, file-swapping software companies on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to reject proposals from the entertainment industry that could put them out of business.
Record labels and Hollywood studios, seeking to overturn lower court rulings shielding file-swapping companies, have asked the court to rule that businesses distributing products "predominately" devoted to copyright infringement should be held legally responsible for that illegal activity.
That prospect has drawn staunch opposition across the technology sector. Intel, trade associations representing consumer electronics and software companies, and consumer groups joined the file-swapping companies on Tuesday, asking the court to avoid creating a new legal test they said might stifle technological innovation.
"The ability to create and innovate is a dynamic process and... not every society has achieved the mechanisms and balance and capability to achieve what we've done," said Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. "It is that delicate balance that content owners are threatening to throw off."
The Supreme Court case is one of the most closely watched issues across the technology and entertainment realms this year, with both sides saying that an unfavourable outcome could be devastating to their respective industries.
At the heart of the case is the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling that made Sony's Betamax videocassette recorder legal to distribute without liability, despite its use by consumers to record and save copyright movies and TV shows. In that ruling, the court said that companies were allowed to distribute products that had "substantial commercial non-infringing uses."
That ruling has helped protect the introduction of many different products, from computers that can burn CDs to MP3 players like Apple's iPod.
Record labels and Hollywood studios have said they are not trying to overturn that ruling and have no interest in making the iPod or other legitimate consumer products illegal.
However, they say that unlike Sony or Apple, Grokster and Morpheus parent StreamCast Networks have actively built their file-swapping software businesses by encouraging copyright infringement. In their appeal to the Supreme Court in January, the entertainment companies said that companies that have business models predominately supported by infringement should be held liable for their users' actions.
"The thing that distinguishes the Grokster-type systems is that they have very little use for any purpose that is lawful," Ted Olsen, the former US solicitor general who is supporting the entertainment companies, said on a conference call Tuesday in response to the file-swapping companies' fillings.
In their fillings, StreamCast and Grokster said that they had no control over their customers' individual file trades, and so could not be held liable, based on the Betamax decision. Any decision that affected their software would be felt across the industry, they said.
"This is no different from Microsoft or any other software vendor which distributes software which is capable of lawful use, but is also capable of unlawful use," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing StreamCast.
Both sides have gathered sometimes unlikely allies to support them in their legal bids, hoping to persuade the Supreme Court that they have widespread, mainstream support.
The record labels and movie studios were joined in January by the US Solicitor General's office, 40 state attorneys general, and the Christian Coalition, as well as numerous musicians and songwriters.
Along with the technology and consumer electronics groups, file-swapping companies were joined by the American Conservative Union, the National Taxpayers Union, and a long list of legal professors and computer scientists. One brief included 20 musicians ranging from Public Enemy front man Chuck D to newcomer Jason Mraz, who said that file-swapping had actually helped -- or at least had not hurt -- their careers.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on 29 March. A decision is expected some time this summer.
Talkback
This article written on file sharing is very well articulated and shows both sides of the argument clearly.
My opinion on this issue is clear. I am 100% opposed to file sharing and illegal copyright infringement. Sure, it seems great that you can download a movie in no time, and pay nothing for it. Or you can go online and download thousands of songs without paying for them. But the cost of what's happening here is much greater than perhaps either the technology sector or the entertainment industry has alluded to.
If the Supreme Court rules that building businesses that deal with illegal activity are legal, then why don't we all build a business that will enable people to rob a bank, or steal other products and it will allow us to directly or indirectly profit from it? Why wouldn't we build a distrubution model that makes stealing easy, and then we can enjoy some of the profits from it? And then we'll just simply say, "We can't be held responsible for what people do using our networks, even if the activity of the people is illegal." We don't do these things because we are ethical people AND because we have laws in place that protect people.
Why not just make EVERYTHING free! Does this sound ridiculous? I think it does too. We live in a society where rights have to be protected and people have to be paid for what they work very hard to create. That's why you or I can't simply walk into a grocery store and walk out with our groceries for free.
If stealing something is deemed as acceptable, then people WILL steal. If building businesses that operate on the basis of other people doing illegal activity and then not having to accept responsibility for it -- then people WILL build businesses that will erode the very foundation of the economy, and what we've worked hard as a society to build over the past century.
History has proven that communism does not work, and we're very fortunate to be a nation based in democracy, and capitalism with strong ethical values. People must be paid for their contribution to society -- in whatever form it may be. Whether it's a government official, an accountant, a doctor, a lawyer, someone in the military, an actor or a musician -- everybody deserves to get paid, and anybody who wants to build a business or product that undermines this system should be shut down immediately.
I enjoy getting paid for my job. Do you?
File sharing and illegal copyright infringement should be shut down immediately.
Oh, dear. What a load of rubbish. I think this must have been written by one of the lawyers (from guess which side....)
I think that it is rubbish as well. The music industry takes most of the profit from these artists and pays them less then their worth. Many artists have used p2p with great results. Not only has it grown their fan base but online companies have made deals with the artists directly for the right to share their music with the world, therefore cutting out the middleman (The Music Industry) and that is what they are afraid of. Technology is here whether you like it or not and its only going to get better.