This is a blog post that I decided to do on my own accord.
One of the biggest, if not the biggest issue regarding ethical use of the internet today is the legality surrounding the use of Person to Person (or P2P) File sharing. There has been tireless debate over the subject, and many different rulings on whether or not it should be allowed. One of the biggest legal instances was the Grokster Case. In the Grokster Case a file-sharing website was taken to court over whether or not they were allowed to be promoting the illegal downloads of copyrighted material. The prosecutor was MGM Movies, backed by the MPAA and the RIAA.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling was as follows:
1)StreamCast and Grokster not only provided the software to pirate files, they also actively promoted pirating. This promotion was in the form of active marketing steps and on-screen statements that described users downloading copyrighted content using their products.
2) By these on-screen statements and their other active steps promoting piracy, StreamCast and Grokster gave up any right to a Betamax Decision defense.
3) The Supreme Court effectively ruled in this Grokster Case: “file-sharing companies can be sued if they actively encourage piracy”.
The Betamax Defense to what they are referring to was a previously decided case about a VCR company not being liable for the duplication of copyrighted video cassettes. But where Grokster differed was that they actually promoted the illegal copying and reproduction on their site, offering on screen step-by-step guides and tips.
While this may have seemed like a win for the entertainment industry, the Supreme Court actually ruled that while companies like Grokster could not promote file sharing and illegal duplication and downloading, the physical act of downloading and sharing copyrighted material was not illegal. A large part of this had to do with the fact that tracking down the billions of downloads every day would have been futile. Though many thought this to be a win for the conglomerate entertainment companies, it was more of a win for those who P2P file share.
The Court’s ruling went on further to state that:
4) Although file sharing tools can be used illegally, the file sharing software itself is not illegal, nor is the general activity of file sharing.
5) Manufacturers of file sharing tools are not responsible for how users use those products, unless the manufacturer takes active steps to encourage direct infringement.
So while the site’s themselves cannot promote the use of their software to be used illegally, it is perfectly legal for people to use the software for this purpose. As long as direct infringement is not directly encouraged, no wrong has been done.
