Grokster Decision is meaningless to filesharers
While people may disagree about the appropriate response to filesharing, its pretty clear to most that if Hollywood embraced and extended P2P, they would have a fantastic distribution and promotion machine at their disposal.
I guess all those file sharers, once they read Souter's decision for the majority, will be so compelled by its legal force and arguments that they will immediately stop swapping.
This decision is meaningless when it comes to P2P behavior, but could have significant ramifications for tech and content companies. A bad decision for yechnology and consumers, a good decision for studios and labels . . .
NOTE: This now sends this case back to the lower courts for trial
Update: June 27, 2005 1:37pm
What does the Grokster decision mean for Google? They just rolled out Google Video, a search tool that lets you find video on the Web; If you then download what you find, is Google now viacariously liable?
Scrolling News Resources:
MGM v. Grokster (EFF)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grokster Decision is meaningless to filesharers:
It's odd that in the same legal system that says gun manufacturers can't be held liable for what people do with their products, a tech company that makes file-sharing software can.
And should I not have downloaded that movie trailer for "War of the Worlds"? You know, the one that's supposed to encourage me to go see the stupid movie....Terrible thing that I downloaded it.....
Posted by: royce | Jun 27, 2005 12:01:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.