By Vishnu Mar 30, 2005, 13:49 GMT
One-hour proceedings saw some familiar arguments from both the sides in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster which pits the titans of Hollywood against the high-tech industry. The Supreme Court's decision, which probably won't be handed down until the end of June, could have broad implications for both sectors. Today, many of the latest hit songs and movies are only a few mouse clicks away on the Internet.
At issue is whether the entertainment industry can continue aggressively pursuing not only those who illegally download copyrighted songs, movies and photos, but also those who sell file-sharing software and services?
The argument - if provocatively put - is central to the grand dispute before the Supreme Court between the entertainment industry in the form of 28 music and movie companies and two producers of file-sharing software.
The entertainment companies petitioned the Supreme Court to take the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that file-sharing companies are not liable for their users' copyright infringement. The decision upheld a lower-court ruling in favour of Grokster and StreamCast Networks, from April 2003.The appeals court based its ruling on the 1984 Supreme Court Sony Betamax case. In 1984, the industry tried and failed in court to block the development of the Sony Betamax video recorder because it could be used to make pirate copies of films. The judge ruled that Sony couldn't be held responsible for the use to which its products were put. That ruling is a close but not exact parallel with this week's case.
The companies -- Grokster and StreamCast Networks, operator of the Morpheus network, -- argue there are enough lawful uses of their services to allow them to continue operating without penalty for actions by some users whom they do not control.
The case has star power on both sides
Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and other musicians are backing the major recording labels, saying their livelihoods are threatened if people can obtain their songs for nothing. About 20 independent recording artists, including the musician and producer Brian Eno, the rockers Heart and the rapper-activist Chuck D, support the file-sharing technology. They say it allows greater distribution of their music and limits the power of huge record companies.
Arguing for the recording companies and movie industry attorny Donald Verrilli said the law would have to look at the business models of the company. In their brief, entertainment companies charged that copyright infringement is "the lifeblood" of these shady businesses, and the reason that internet users flock to download the free software in the first place. Grokster and StreamCast then profit mightily from the advertising displayed on the file-sharing services. And since file sharers can find nearly every popular song or movie for free on the services, legitimate businesses like Movielink and Apple Computer's iTunes are threatened.
Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling against Grokster Ltd. could mean that if “I am a new inventor, I am going to get sued right away.”
Richard Taranto, representing the respondents Grokster and StreamCast, argued that the court must adhere to the "clear Sony rule" in judging the case.
Regardless of the outcome, it still will not be legal to download copyrighted materials over the Internet without permission, though tens of millions of people do so each day. And any ruling will not affect thousands of copyright lawsuits filed individually against Internet users caught sharing music and movies online. If artists don't get paid, they will be less likely to write or perform. But, if free music is available, people will take it whatever the rights or wrongs.
Your Talkback on this Story