Sunday, September 11, 2005
I Grok the Supreme Court
I know it has been a while since the most recent Supreme Court decisions came down, but I just started writing this Blog so I have some pent up opinions to release. So here it goes.
In June the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) et al. vs. Grokster et al. The question before the court was whether or not Grokster, Morpheus and other file-sharing software companies can or should be help liable for copyright infringements perpetrated by users who downloaded the software itself for free. The previous standard for determining whether a company could be held liable for creating software came from the Sony Betamax case. This decision in the 1980s held that so long as the technology was “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” the company was safe from liability and the individual perpetrators of crime were the only responsible parties. In other words, as long as a company’s technology is capable of doing something cool and legal, the company can’t be sued when a few people use the technology to break copyright laws.
File-sharing technology, however, has rocked the world of copyright law and its enforcement. The monumental volume of illegally traded files and the overwhelming percentage of the total files traded that are illegal have spurred the Supreme Court to take a second look at this particular issue. They decided in favor of MGM and against the file-sharing technology companies and remanded the case to a lower court. This decision has the potential to trip up and tear down internet technology companies with unmatched strength, possibly crippling them depending on how the decision is interpreted.
The court said that internet companies cannot encourage or advertise their products in terms of its potential infringing uses. It is my hope that this will be interpreted as a ruling against the marketing strategy rather than one against the technology itself. In this case the ruling is relatively innocuous. If the ruling is interpreted as ruling against the technology itself, it may hinder all American software development.
If companies always have to be worried that they will be sued when a few internet surfers figure out how to use their technology illegally, software development ceases to be a profitable venture. Research and development costs skyrocket because companies have to guarantee that their products cannot be used illegally. Furthermore, this would undercut internet technology companies drive toward innovation. New technology and new innovation would mean new ways and reasons to get sued. Companies like Google and Mozilla who have contributed prolifically to quality free software may take huge financial hits. New start-ups are thwarted before they can even get off the ground for new insurance costs and ridiculous liabilities.
I can only hope that further interpretation of this revision of the Betamax rule can walk back the potential damage inflicted on the software and internet technology companies. We’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds.
In June the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) et al. vs. Grokster et al. The question before the court was whether or not Grokster, Morpheus and other file-sharing software companies can or should be help liable for copyright infringements perpetrated by users who downloaded the software itself for free. The previous standard for determining whether a company could be held liable for creating software came from the Sony Betamax case. This decision in the 1980s held that so long as the technology was “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” the company was safe from liability and the individual perpetrators of crime were the only responsible parties. In other words, as long as a company’s technology is capable of doing something cool and legal, the company can’t be sued when a few people use the technology to break copyright laws.
File-sharing technology, however, has rocked the world of copyright law and its enforcement. The monumental volume of illegally traded files and the overwhelming percentage of the total files traded that are illegal have spurred the Supreme Court to take a second look at this particular issue. They decided in favor of MGM and against the file-sharing technology companies and remanded the case to a lower court. This decision has the potential to trip up and tear down internet technology companies with unmatched strength, possibly crippling them depending on how the decision is interpreted.
The court said that internet companies cannot encourage or advertise their products in terms of its potential infringing uses. It is my hope that this will be interpreted as a ruling against the marketing strategy rather than one against the technology itself. In this case the ruling is relatively innocuous. If the ruling is interpreted as ruling against the technology itself, it may hinder all American software development.
If companies always have to be worried that they will be sued when a few internet surfers figure out how to use their technology illegally, software development ceases to be a profitable venture. Research and development costs skyrocket because companies have to guarantee that their products cannot be used illegally. Furthermore, this would undercut internet technology companies drive toward innovation. New technology and new innovation would mean new ways and reasons to get sued. Companies like Google and Mozilla who have contributed prolifically to quality free software may take huge financial hits. New start-ups are thwarted before they can even get off the ground for new insurance costs and ridiculous liabilities.
I can only hope that further interpretation of this revision of the Betamax rule can walk back the potential damage inflicted on the software and internet technology companies. We’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds.
