(I added some stuff.)

Quote:
Given these benefits in security, cost, and efficiency, peer-to-peer networks are employed to store and distribute electronic files by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.


Quote:
Grokster and StreamCast dispute this figure, raising methodological problems and arguing that free copying even of copyrighted works may be authorized by the rightholders. They also argue that potential noninfringing uses of their software are significant in kind, even if infrequent in practice. Some musical performers, for example, have gained new audiences by distributing their copyrighted works for free across peer-to-peer networks, and some distributors of unprotected content have used peer-to-peer networks to disseminate files, Shakespeare being an example. Indeed, StreamCast has given Morpheus users the opportunity to download the briefs in this very case, though their popularity has not been quantified.


Quote:
Grokster and StreamCast concede the infringement in most downloads,


Quote:
From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance.


Quote:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement.


Quote:
Evidence indicates that [i]t was always [StreamCast's] intent to use [its OpenNap network] to be able to capture email addresses of [its] initial target market so that [it] could promote [its] StreamCast Morpheus interface to them,


Quote:
StreamCast even planned to flaunt the illegal uses of its software; when it launched the OpenNap network, the chief technology officer of the company averred that [t]he goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued. It's the best way to get in the new[s].


Quote:
StreamCast's executives monitored the number of songs by certain commercial artists available on their networks, and an internal communication indicates they aimed to have a larger number of copyrighted songs available on their networks than other file-sharing networks. ... The point, of course, would be to attract users of a mind to infringe, just as it would be with their promotional materials developed showing copyrighted songs as examples of the kinds of files available through Morpheus. ... Morpheus in fact allowed users to search specifically for Top 40 songs, ... which were inevitably copyrighted. Similarly, Grokster sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted materials.


Quote:
Users seeking Top 40 songs, for example, or the latest release by Modest Mouse, are certain to be far more numerous than those seeking a free Decameron, and Grokster and StreamCast translated that demand into dollars.


(I just thought a Modest Mouse reference in a Supreme Court opinion was neat.)

Quote:
The mutual exclusivity of these values should not be overstated, however. On the one hand technological innovators, including those writing filesharing computer programs, may wish for effective copyright protections for their work. ... (StreamCast itself was urged by an associate to get [its] technology written down and [its intellectual property] protected. ...) On the other hand the widespread distribution of creative works through improved technologies may enable the synthesis of new works or generate audiences for emerging artists.


Quote:
One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, see Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F. 2d 1159, 1162 (CA2 1971), and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it, Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F. 2d 304, 307 (CA2 1963).


In re: time-shifting Sony case:
Quote:
There was no evidence that Sony had expressed an object of bringing about taping in violation of copyright or had taken active steps to increase its profits from unlawful taping. ... Although Sony's advertisements urged consumers to buy the VCR to record favorite shows or build a library of recorded programs ..., neither of these uses was necessarily infringing ....


Anyway, it looks like they're pretty explicit throughout that the problem is with hte peer-to-peer implementers' stated intent. It doesn't even seem to come down to something as hairy as implication in most cases. And it is explicitly not a ruling against P2P at all. They comment on its potential legal uses frequently. This is just a ruling against a pair of companies whose intent was to distribute copyrighted material.


Edited by wfaulk (27/06/2005 19:51)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk