p2pnet.net News:- A recent Washington Post OpEd chose Grokster v MGM as its focus,.

Alluding to Betamax as a disinterested, so to speak, technology, “which the court shielded from copyright infringement liability on the theory that non-infringing uses for the product existed,” it concluded:

“… Grokster and StreamCast are not simply technologies that can be used for good or ill; they are technologies that were designed and marketed precisely so as to facilitate theft. Both companies positioned themselves to inherit Napster’s user base when the courts ordered that company to stop permitting illegal file-sharing. Both have promoted themselves based on the wide variety of materials illegally available. And both have frustrated copyright holders’ efforts to police their use. A company that builds its entire business model around facilitating illegality should not be immune from liability because of the possibility of innocent use. Drawing a clear distinction between such a product and an iPod would protect both innovation and intellectual property.

Brian Petruska from Birmingham, England, begged to differ in a letter to the editor. He thought the editorial on file sharing, "Not an iPod," misjudged the issue, going on:

“File sharing is a technological advance that allows for the costless worldwide distribution of digital media. By eliminating the distribution costs, it makes the world and everyone in it wealthier by enriching people’s lives with music and other forms of entertainment.

“Second, file sharing will not bankrupt artists, record companies or movie studios. These folks will continue to receive royalties from radio play, live performances and cinema presentations. In addition, music consumers desire not just music. They also want pictures of their favorite artists, album art, lyric sheets, etc. Thus, file sharing does not spell the doom of an industry, merely the doom of a particular business model.

“Record companies and movie studios artificially inflate the cost of distribution by enforcing their copyright monopoly on distribution. This monopoly is a gift from the government that is now contrary to the public good.

“Technology changes, and industry and law must change with it. File sharing can increase the amount of music and art in people’s lives. I hope that the Supreme Court is not as myopic and chained to the status quo as The Post’s editorial board.”

==========

Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net

See:-
Washington Post – Not an iPod, March 30, 2005
misjudged the issue – File Sharing Isn’t Theft, Washington Post, April 9, 2005

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 12th, 2005 at 3:46 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 3280 times