Grokster File-Sharing Case Hits The Supreme Court

Advertisement (Why?)

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from representatives of major film studios and the recording industry who are seeking to shut down peer-to-peer services they say are costing them billions of dollars. One of the questions the court kept coming back to was this: What's more important — preventing potential copyright violations or allowing the market to come up with innovative new products?

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. "The scale of the whole thing is mind-boggling," argued recording industry lawyer Donald Verrilli. "They intentionally built a network of infringing users."

News source: mtv.com

"Readily available digital video content remains a key driver for the portable multimedia player market," said Josh Martin, associate research analyst at IDC. "The proliferation and growth of video service providers will serve to fill the existing video content void and increase adoption of portable multimedia players such as Windows Mobile-based devices." A one-year premium membership to the MSN Video Downloads service with access to all available videos is $19.95 (U.S.). In addition, people can access a limited amount of free content without a paid membership

#1 bucko on 31 Mar 2005 - 15:55

Why, every one just moves on, if you can't beat em, be with them.

(3 replies) #2 Lexcyn on 31 Mar 2005 - 16:07

So ... he's saying file sharing programs 'intentionally built a network of infringing users' - now, if this were true, then this would include programs such as Napster and iTunes. No? They are file sharing programs, you just have to pay for them.

Let's compare this to a similiar technology - the photocopier. Some will say that photocopiers are 'intentionally built for copyright infringment' - but do the majority of people commit these crimes? No.

The fact of the matter is, file sharing programs do VERY little damage to large record labels. If you look at the financial data, music sales have increased and decreased at varrying rates all months of the year, like every other market has.

This is turning out to be more about money than it is about the artists. Maybe one day, big corporations like the RIAA will wake up and see that the artists deserve more of a profit from CD's, and less of a profit for themselves.

They will never stop the pirating of software/music - why not put money where it's usefull? You know, like social security, healthcare, etc.

#2.1 machorro on 31 Mar 2005 - 16:59

QUOTE

The fact of the matter is, file sharing programs do VERY little damage to large record labels. If you look at the financial data, music sales have increased and decreased at varrying rates all months of the year, like every other market has.

and didn't the RIAA said the CD sales went up last year(i read this in another topic, so i'm not really sure

)

#2.2 code_monkey on 01 Apr 2005 - 01:33

You seem to be confused a bit about iTunes and Napster, the whole reason anyone pays for them is that they are legal. And technically they aren't file-sharing programs because all songs are downloaded from a central server and there is no uploading.

#2.3 B-52Stratofortress on 01 Apr 2005 - 10:53

They will never stop the pirating of software/music - why not put money where it's usefull? You know, like social security, healthcare, etc.

Neither will go away such ills like murders, diseases and death, but that doesn't mean we dont fight against these ills.
Who's money to put where? You probably meant why doesn't government take mine or any other unvilling individuals money and give it to you.

(1 reply) #3 Fullcirclephoenix on 31 Mar 2005 - 20:28

Also there's the issue of lost revenue. Are they losing money? No. Whatever the difference between CD sales figures are from month to month, it's a matter of less profit rather than losing money. If you make 500 billion in 2001 and 450 billion in 2002, did you lose money? Certainly not. You profited, just not as greatly as the previous year. To me there is a huge difference between this and actual revenue loss. The RIAA calling what they are experiencing a loss, to me, just illustrates their disgusting corporate greed.

#3.1 MrCobra on 31 Mar 2005 - 21:01

But, sadly, that's the way it goes. Corporations do it all the time. They have a projected profit of, let's say $500 billion, as in your example, and only make $450 billion, then to them they lost money. I don't see how someone can lose something that they never had to begin with. I wish I could report crap like that concerning my yearly salary.

#4 toadeater on 31 Mar 2005 - 23:23

If you had the money, and given the choice, would you rather buy the real thing and have it to own, or would you rather download a worthless MP3?

The RIAA is full of sh*t, people who buy albums continue to buy them, people who pirate music would not have bought them in the first place. It's not like piracy began with P2P, before there was P2P people used cassettes!

(2 replies) #5 smeggers on 01 Apr 2005 - 06:51

Greed is a disgusting excuse for any action taken against the working class period. This isn't about anything other than money, and the persuit of it with precious little thought given to anything or anyone else. In this economy, and considering the rate of inflation, they should be stroking the customers. NOT making enemies. Music at any price for us is too much, and a luxury we will have to do without. There are these nagging little things like food, gas, heat, shelter, clothing, etc., that take precedence. I for one will not support their lifestyle (artist and executives) anymore!

Last edited by 49488 on 01 Apr 2005 - 06:56

#5.1 B-52Stratofortress on 01 Apr 2005 - 10:46

When some people (namely the enemies of your particular form of collectivism) make profits it's called greed, but when some people who are favorable in your particular form of collectivism (you mentioned workers) strive for higher wages then it's not greed?

#5.2 smeggers on 04 Apr 2005 - 08:44

No, when workers seek higher rates of compensation, it is because there is a genuine need. The rate of pay raise is rarely enough to compensate the rate of inflation. Most of the time, there isn't any raise due to astronomical health care cost's.
Check the statistics. What is the percentage of pay of a floor worker in a factory (the person that actually makes the product) versus that of the ceo of the same factory. Compare 1950 to now 2005, then come talk to me.

Do not ever insinuate that a working person is greedy. We do all the working, living, dying, cleaning up, and tax paying.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net