Another brilliant supreme court ruling.

[wacki]

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that companies that sell file-sharing software can be held liable for copyright infringement.

Fox news

How much abuse will this ruling get? Is bit torrent gone? Kazaa?

CNN Report here

[slamdunkpro]

This is insane.

Anyone know what the split was? All I could find was that Souter wrote the opinion for the majority.

[CollinEstes]

No bit-torrent is not gone by any means. They try to shut down sites all the time and they succeed but then for every one they close two more open. It is a losing battle for the RICAA and MPAA. It is their own fault IMO, they had the chance to jump out their when Napster first started and try to stop it and create a legal alternative and they didn't. I guess they thought it was a fad.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess they thought it was a fad

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit like Rock n Roll [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[CollinEstes]

This still doesn't address what they need to address. Which is downloading TV shows. MPAA sues sites all the time for have TV torrents available but none of these people what to fight and pay the legal fees so they just settle out of court. So the court never gets the chance to rule on whether it is illegal or refers back to the 1980s case against the VCR where the supreme court ruled that you could "time-shift"

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This is insane.

Anyone know what the split was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Original post said it.

[ QUOTE ]
unanimously

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously"

That's always scary, when these nine people that can't agree on anything vote unanimously on something . . .

[vulturesrow]

The Court said they "could be held liable", not shall be held liable. All they are saying is that if the company is demonstrating intent to enable illegal activity then they can be held liable. IMO, a company that produces file sharing software ought to try to what they can to discourage illegal usage. Thats probably not very easy to do, and I doubt any of these cases will go very far. I certainly believe that musicians ought to have some sort of protection from illegal use of their music.

[TomCollins]

The basic idea of the ruling was that Grokster was marketing itself as a medium for distributing copyrighted material.

If the VCR case would have been about a company that created something "so you can copy movies and sell them dirt cheap!", we would have had the same result.

[CollinEstes]

But the idea of time shifting still isn't being inforced as numerous sites that offer tv torrent files are being sued but never taken to court. I understand the ruling I said that it DIDN'T address the time shifting matter.