File Sharing Services Can Be Sued

[pop pop]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700471_pf.html

I haven't read all of the specifics, but according to what I initially see, Kazaa and the like can no longer say--we just provide the tools and the service, we're not responsible for what people use it for.

[pop pop]

I believe, in fact, the case WAS Kazaa. Part of the fallout seems to be that Kazaa and the like will now face the onslaught of suits seeking recovery of "billions of dollars" in lost revenue, according to what's being reported.

EDIT: I can't find Kazaa specifically mentioned--Grokster is and I thought that was Kazaa.

Here's the entire brief for those who enjoy the torture of reading things legal )like EULAs :mad: )

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-480

[pop pop]

I read a bunch about this decision today and I've concluded it will have little to no impact on P2P software, in general.

From the decision:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."

The decision reads as being rather limited. It doesn't say P2P software is illegal or that P2P services are illegal. A Slashdot poster put it this way:

Grokster advertised their ability to find illegal song downloads. So unlike any other file transfer method which is simply used for illegal transfers, Grokster actually made this one of the main selling points of their product. This defeats the usually quite valid argument that P2P is just a tool with legal and illegal uses -- Grokster decided that their marketing should focus on the illegal.

And as a consequence, Grokster can be held liable for damages.

That makes sense to me.

Edit from a couple of posts above: Sorry--I thought Grokster was Kazaa...guess not.

[PrntRhd]

The Court says you can be held liable if the PRIMARY intent for providing the service/server is to violate copyrights. The Court did not define what the term Primary intent means, and sent the case back down to the lower court.
Grokster was truly stupid to embrace the dark side of P2P, otherwise they could claim many non-infringing uses which would limit any liability. They were tripped up by the fact the download ads generated the vast majority of their revenue, and the vast majority of the downloads were encouraged infringements.
Streamcast's Morpheus (gnutella) was the other defendant in this case.