GROKSTER RULING: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

(Thanks to Karl for posting the link to the article in the comments section for the post below)
Following the Supreme Court decision, the Wall Street Journal has invited a panel of experts to weigh exactly what it might mean.

What's expecially reassuring is it that it's not a blanket decision - it appears Justice Souter has suggested that what's important is how the various peer to peer networks have sold their services:

Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses," and "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement."

In other words, the court appears to be saying that selling a peer to peer network or its software is fine, providing that you don't say it's for getting loads of songs or music for free - the difference between selling a gun, and selling "the perfect way to shut your enemies up."

In addition, Grokster/Stream Cast lawyer Fred Von Lohmann was pretty upbeat even before the verdict came out; from their side, they were happy that the court had accepted that simply because a technology can be used to perform illegal activities doesn't mean that technology endorses those crimes.

In the WSJ roundtable, Michael Geist attempts to think forward what this judgement might mean for any future lawsuit against Bittorrent (he believes a case would be an uphill struggle for the RIAA-MPAA to prove "purposeful culpable expression") and points out this:

Though not core to the decision, I find Justice Breyer's willingness to question the economic impact of P2P on the recording industry noteworthy. Over the past three weeks, the OECD, FTC, and now the U.S. Supreme Court have all cast doubt on the linkage between P2P and declining music sales. That makes for a strong trio and should help move the debate beyond unsubstantiated claims of a direct correlation between file sharing and the recording industry's bottom line.

After all this time, even mainstream opinion is starting to catch up with what some people have been chanting for years: There's no evidence at all that filesharing costs the music industry anything at all. Except the legal bills the BPI and RIAA are running up on their member's behalfs on their Pseuppuki PR strategy, of course.

music filesharing downloads