NitnayLion
Adept
Source: The Globe and Mail
By MATHEW INGRAM
The major record labels and movie studios would like you to think of the MGM vs. Grokster case  which the U.S. Supreme Court started hearing today  as a battle between the forces of truth and righteousness and the lawless hordes of computer pirates who are plundering the vaults of the world's music and movie industries.
In reality, however, it is about who should be able to control a new technology, and who should be responsible for the ways in which a new technology is used. That's why the key precedent in the MGM vs. Grokster case is the 1984 Betamax decision, which struck down the movie industry's attempts to restrict the then-new videocassette recording technology that Sony Corp. had introduced.
Just as the "peer-to-peer" file trading technology used by Grokster and others has been portrayed as a tool designed solely for thieves and content pirates, VCRs were also portrayed bringing about the end of the global entertainment industry.
It's easy to laugh now at the fulminations of Motion Picture Association of America chairman Jack Valenti, who warned that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone." At the time, however, the industry was convinced that the technology spelled certain doom. And the battle went down to the wire.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Sony, obviously, but it was a fairly tight decision: five justices rejected the MPAA's arguments, but four accepted them and sided with the movie industry.
In the end, however, the highest court in the U.S. agreed that the Betamax technology should not be unduly restricted, refusing to accept the argument that Sony was engaged in "contributory infringement" of copyright because it made devices that could be used to copy TV shows and movies. Since VCRs were capable of being used for what the U.S. court called "substantial non-infringing purposes," the justices ruled that Sony was not liable.
Although the Grokster case began with music and has grown to include movies and other content, the current case isn't really about either of those things. It boils down to a decision about how the courts and ultimately the government should deal with any new kind of technology.
In effect, the Supreme Court has to come to a conclusion not just about the purposes to which P2P technology is being put now, but the potential uses for such technology in the future, and whether they outweigh the potential for illegal activity.
That's why electronic equipment makers and technology companies such as Dell have expressed reservations about a possible win by the entertainment industry, and why they and others have filed "friend of the court" briefs on the case. And it's why Internet broadcasting pioneer and billionaire sports-team owner Mark Cuban has agreed to back Grokster's case financially, as he stated recently on his website "blog."
Mr. Cuban and others are afraid that if Grokster and others are found guilty of providing technology that can be used to infringe copyrights, other companies might refrain from developing useful technology for fear of being found guilty of similar offences. Even some of the Supreme Court judges said on Tuesday wondered whether similar lawsuits might have discouraged other inventions such as copy machines and even the iPod music player.
The overwhelming irony of the Betamax decision, of course, is that the motion picture industry went on to make billions of dollars from the videotape revolution, which put a VCR in every household and created retailing legends such as the Blockbuster Entertainment chain. Many films which would never have been profitable based on a theatrical release have made millions through videotape rentals.
Proponents of the peer-to-peer technology used by Grokster and its fellow file-sharing networks  including Morpheus, Kazaa, iMesh, Limewire and Ares  say the music and movie industries could similarly gain a lot by adapting themselves and their business models to the Internet, but instead the MPAA and Recording Industry Association of America have spent most of their time mounting expensive lawsuits against users of P2P networks.
What would the world look like now if Sony had lost the Betamax decision in 1984, or if a similar lawsuit had been launched against Sony for its Walkman portable music player, or against Apple, or against the Internet itself? Those are some of the questions the Supreme Court will be asking itself over the next few months
Full Story
Code:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050329.wmathlaterfront0329/BNStory/Front/By MATHEW INGRAM
The major record labels and movie studios would like you to think of the MGM vs. Grokster case  which the U.S. Supreme Court started hearing today  as a battle between the forces of truth and righteousness and the lawless hordes of computer pirates who are plundering the vaults of the world's music and movie industries.
In reality, however, it is about who should be able to control a new technology, and who should be responsible for the ways in which a new technology is used. That's why the key precedent in the MGM vs. Grokster case is the 1984 Betamax decision, which struck down the movie industry's attempts to restrict the then-new videocassette recording technology that Sony Corp. had introduced.
Just as the "peer-to-peer" file trading technology used by Grokster and others has been portrayed as a tool designed solely for thieves and content pirates, VCRs were also portrayed bringing about the end of the global entertainment industry.
It's easy to laugh now at the fulminations of Motion Picture Association of America chairman Jack Valenti, who warned that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman at home alone." At the time, however, the industry was convinced that the technology spelled certain doom. And the battle went down to the wire.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Sony, obviously, but it was a fairly tight decision: five justices rejected the MPAA's arguments, but four accepted them and sided with the movie industry.
In the end, however, the highest court in the U.S. agreed that the Betamax technology should not be unduly restricted, refusing to accept the argument that Sony was engaged in "contributory infringement" of copyright because it made devices that could be used to copy TV shows and movies. Since VCRs were capable of being used for what the U.S. court called "substantial non-infringing purposes," the justices ruled that Sony was not liable.
Although the Grokster case began with music and has grown to include movies and other content, the current case isn't really about either of those things. It boils down to a decision about how the courts and ultimately the government should deal with any new kind of technology.
In effect, the Supreme Court has to come to a conclusion not just about the purposes to which P2P technology is being put now, but the potential uses for such technology in the future, and whether they outweigh the potential for illegal activity.
That's why electronic equipment makers and technology companies such as Dell have expressed reservations about a possible win by the entertainment industry, and why they and others have filed "friend of the court" briefs on the case. And it's why Internet broadcasting pioneer and billionaire sports-team owner Mark Cuban has agreed to back Grokster's case financially, as he stated recently on his website "blog."
Mr. Cuban and others are afraid that if Grokster and others are found guilty of providing technology that can be used to infringe copyrights, other companies might refrain from developing useful technology for fear of being found guilty of similar offences. Even some of the Supreme Court judges said on Tuesday wondered whether similar lawsuits might have discouraged other inventions such as copy machines and even the iPod music player.
The overwhelming irony of the Betamax decision, of course, is that the motion picture industry went on to make billions of dollars from the videotape revolution, which put a VCR in every household and created retailing legends such as the Blockbuster Entertainment chain. Many films which would never have been profitable based on a theatrical release have made millions through videotape rentals.
Proponents of the peer-to-peer technology used by Grokster and its fellow file-sharing networks  including Morpheus, Kazaa, iMesh, Limewire and Ares  say the music and movie industries could similarly gain a lot by adapting themselves and their business models to the Internet, but instead the MPAA and Recording Industry Association of America have spent most of their time mounting expensive lawsuits against users of P2P networks.
What would the world look like now if Sony had lost the Betamax decision in 1984, or if a similar lawsuit had been launched against Sony for its Walkman portable music player, or against Apple, or against the Internet itself? Those are some of the questions the Supreme Court will be asking itself over the next few months
Full Story
Code:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050329.wmathlaterfront0329/BNStory/Front/