Sad day
I've noted the news that today the Supreme Court
handed down a ruling in the "Grokster Case." They ruled unanimously against
Grokster (and other peer-to-peer networks) and in favor of the RIAA, MPAA, and
other "copyright cartel" minions.
For
any of my readers who don't know what this case is about, the thumbnail sketch
is this: RIAA and similar bodies sued Grokster (or its holding company) for
promoting copyright infringement. Grokster defended on the basis of the "Betamax
decision" of 20-plus years ago that technologies with significant non-infringing
uses could be marketed without fear of liability for any actual infringement on
the part of users of the product. It's this decision that allows Xerox and other
copier manufacturers to market a machine that can be used to copy material
protected by copyright, because it can be used to copy material that has no
copyright, and it can be used to make copies under the "fair use" provisions of
the copyright law. Ditto for your VCR: you can copy TV programs to timeshift
them and to archive them (both considered fair use by the courts in the
past).
What this ruling means (and I
admit that I am by no means an expert on copyright law or all the issues
involved) is that any tech company that makes a player for songs or movies will
have to think more than once about being held liable for any unauthorized
copying its customers do. It will make players more expensive, because every
player will have to include DRM (Digital Rights/Restrictions Management)
software or hardware.
This ruling and
its fallout won't stop piracy. It will stop fair uses of works that have been
permitted in the past, and it will have a chilling effect on the creation of new
technology.
I hope I'm wrong, since I
work (or hope to work) in the high-tech field, but I think the Supreme Court may
just have killed the hi-tech industry in this country. If so, where will
Hollywood find buyers for its wares? As always: be careful what you wish for;
you might get it!
Posted: Mon - June 27, 2005 at 02:10 PM