Wire Story
Betamax making a comeback, at least in Grokster’s legal arguments
By Logan C. Adams
Scripps Howard Foundation Wire
WASHINGTON – Remember Betamax? Grokster hopes the U.S. Supreme Court recalls the now-forgotten video format.
When the court hears arguments March 29 in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al., v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., supporters of the “P2P” (peer-to-peer) software industry say the justices should treat the case as it has treated those concerning past “new technologies.”
Grokster is a P2P file sharing network that allows people to send files – including movies, music, photos and text – to each other without using a central computer, or server. MGM and other entertainment businesses sued Grokster, claiming the company is liable whenever users trade copyrighted material.
The Home Recording Rights Coalition considers the Betamax ruling its “Magna Carta,” crediting it with making countless technologies, including the VCR and DVD, possible.
In that case, Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, the court ruled that Sony would not be liable when people recorded television shows or movies for personal use. Nor could Sony be blamed if, for example, an individual made illegal recordings and sold them.
The two sides in this case disagree over how to interpret that ruling. Those on Grokster’s side say Grokster and similar firms such as Streamcast have no control over what users do and, thus, are not liable. Those in the entertainment industry believe Grokster and the others are responsible because they released software knowing it would be used illegally.
“The Betamax case said that if you have substantial uses that don’t infringe on copyright then it’s OK,” said John Feehery, executive vice president and chief communications officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. “What we’re saying is that Grokster is substantially used to infringe copyright and to steal property. That’s the whole purpose of Grokster.”
Feehery said that an estimated 90 percent of the files traded on Grokster break copyright law.
Sixty technology law professors, chipmaker Intel Corp. and a few musicians, including the members of the band Heart, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Grokster’s case.
Supporters of MGM are doing the same. Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed on behalf of the federal government, and former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olsen and the Christian Coalition of America joined dozens of recording artists, including Sheryl Crow, Sarah Mclachlan, the Dixie Chicks and the Eagles.
Three of the justices who ruled on Betamax two decades ago are still on the court – John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, who were in the majority, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was among the four dissenters.
Supporters of Grokster are also saying that, even though their technology can be used to infringe on copyrights, the entertainment industry still benefits.
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said at a news conference Tuesday that in 1985, one year after the Betamax ruling, motion picture production was an $8 billion-per-year industry. Today, he said, it is more than $50 billion, even though the entertainment industry said at the time that home recording technology would ruin it.
According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, $8 billion in 1985 equaled more than $14 billion in 2004.
Feehery said the numbers had nothing to do with this case.
Napster, the company that started the file-sharing trend, lost a similar court challenge in 2001, but there was an important difference between its service and Grokster’s. Napster users found each other using a central server, and Napster had the means to block copyrighted material but did not, a federal court ruled.
Since the court decision, Napster has become a paid service.
By Logan C. Adams
Scripps Howard Foundation Wire
WASHINGTON – Remember Betamax? Grokster hopes the U.S. Supreme Court recalls the now-forgotten video format.
When the court hears arguments March 29 in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al., v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., supporters of the “P2P” (peer-to-peer) software industry say the justices should treat the case as it has treated those concerning past “new technologies.”
Grokster is a P2P file sharing network that allows people to send files – including movies, music, photos and text – to each other without using a central computer, or server. MGM and other entertainment businesses sued Grokster, claiming the company is liable whenever users trade copyrighted material.
The Home Recording Rights Coalition considers the Betamax ruling its “Magna Carta,” crediting it with making countless technologies, including the VCR and DVD, possible.
In that case, Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, the court ruled that Sony would not be liable when people recorded television shows or movies for personal use. Nor could Sony be blamed if, for example, an individual made illegal recordings and sold them.
The two sides in this case disagree over how to interpret that ruling. Those on Grokster’s side say Grokster and similar firms such as Streamcast have no control over what users do and, thus, are not liable. Those in the entertainment industry believe Grokster and the others are responsible because they released software knowing it would be used illegally.
“The Betamax case said that if you have substantial uses that don’t infringe on copyright then it’s OK,” said John Feehery, executive vice president and chief communications officer of the Motion Picture Association of America. “What we’re saying is that Grokster is substantially used to infringe copyright and to steal property. That’s the whole purpose of Grokster.”
Feehery said that an estimated 90 percent of the files traded on Grokster break copyright law.
Sixty technology law professors, chipmaker Intel Corp. and a few musicians, including the members of the band Heart, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Grokster’s case.
Supporters of MGM are doing the same. Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed on behalf of the federal government, and former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olsen and the Christian Coalition of America joined dozens of recording artists, including Sheryl Crow, Sarah Mclachlan, the Dixie Chicks and the Eagles.
Three of the justices who ruled on Betamax two decades ago are still on the court – John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, who were in the majority, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was among the four dissenters.
Supporters of Grokster are also saying that, even though their technology can be used to infringe on copyrights, the entertainment industry still benefits.
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said at a news conference Tuesday that in 1985, one year after the Betamax ruling, motion picture production was an $8 billion-per-year industry. Today, he said, it is more than $50 billion, even though the entertainment industry said at the time that home recording technology would ruin it.
According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, $8 billion in 1985 equaled more than $14 billion in 2004.
Feehery said the numbers had nothing to do with this case.
Napster, the company that started the file-sharing trend, lost a similar court challenge in 2001, but there was an important difference between its service and Grokster’s. Napster users found each other using a central server, and Napster had the means to block copyrighted material but did not, a federal court ruled.
Since the court decision, Napster has become a paid service.
posted by Logan C. Adams at 3/03/2005 04:44:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home