Will the Past Haunt BitTorrent?
"BitTorrent programmer Bram Cohen may be in legal jeopardy after the discovery on Wednesday of an old agenda buried on his website saying he creates programs to ‘commit digital piracy.’
"The polemic would have been of little interest a week ago. But on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the intent behind a file-sharing program can be a decisive factor in determining whether the creator can be sued for its users’ copyright infringement.
"Undated and less than 200 words long, Cohen’s ‘Technological Activist’s Agenda‘ says he creates and gives away software in furtherance of laissez-faire political objectives."
Katie Dean and Kevin Poulsen. BitTorrent Whiz Extolled Piracy?. Wired News. June 30, 2005.
Copyright Problems with Google Video Search
“Google’s new video search tool is turning out to be a little more expansive than the company planned, with users uploading copyrighted content ranging from the last ‘Matrix’ movie to the ‘Family Guy’ cartoons.
“Consumers browsing the service, which was opened to the public just two days ago, have uncovered links to full versions of feature-length movies, TV shows and other content. As of Thursday morning, much of that content could be watched in its entirety on Google’s site.”
John Borland and Elinor Mills. Now Playing on Google: ‘Matrix,’ ‘Family Guy.’ News.com. June 30, 2005.
Grokster’s Impact on Podcasting
"Apple’s new podcasting service could be in a sticky situation if podcasters post copyrighted material, thanks to Monday’s Grokster decision by the Supreme Court, some experts say. But others suggested Apple’s new podcast hub could prove to be an ideal one-stop-shop for securing music licenses for homebrew radio shows.
"Podcasters may not include unauthorized copyright material in their broadcasts, and Apple will reportedly monitor podcasts for infringing material, according to the Guardian. Apple also provides a complaint form on the iTMS to notify the company of any copyright violations.
"But with the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the MGM Studios v. Grokster case, companies can now be sued if they encourage users of their technology to infringe copyrights."
Katie Dean. Grokster May Haunt Podcasting. Wired News. June 29, 2005.
See also:
Bobbie Johnson. iPods get Colour, Podcasts. Guardian Unlimited Online Blog. June 28, 2005.
Katie Dean. Grokster Loss Sucks for Tech. Wired News. June 27, 2005.
DMCRA Reaches House Floor
“A couple months ago I wrote a piece called, ‘Consumer DRM-Awareness Through Labeling,’ in which I argue that software and various forms of media should be outwardly and properly labeled if they contain any form of digital rights management.
“In early March, Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia authored a bill called the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005. House Resolution 1201, as it is called, has been introduced on the House floor, sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and further sent to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.”
DRM Blog. Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005. June 29, 2005.
See also:
DRM Blog. Consumer DRM-Awareness Through Labeling. April 11, 2005.
Groskter Reflection
"Lessig’s experience makes him uniquely qualified to render his opinion on the landmark June 27 decision (.pdf) by the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster to side with recording studios and against companies distributing peer-to-peer file-sharing software that lets people trade commercial songs for free.
"He’s somewhat pleased that the court’s decision to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit court in effect upheld an earlier Sony decision involving the Betamax VCR, which declined to hold manufacturers liable for illegal acts by their users.
"But Lessig contends the Supreme Court’s decision will chill innovation by introducing a new level of uncertainty about whether a technology creator had an intent to allow copyright infringement."
BusinessWeek Online. "Ten Years of Chilled Innovation". June 29, 2005.
See also:
Udpate: Anush Yegyazarian. File Sharing and the Supreme Court: The Fallout. PC World. July 7, 2005.
Siva Vaidhyanathan. Supreme Court’s Unsound Decision. Salon. June 30, 2005.
WSJ.com. Grokster Roundtable. June 28, 2005.
Declan McCullagh. Congress Applauds File-Sharing Ruling. News.com. June 27, 2005.
EFF Deep Links. Supreme Court Sows Uncertainty. June 27, 2005.
EFF Deep Links. What Is Inducement? June 27, 2005.
Ernest Miller. Notes on RIAA and MPAA Press Conference. Corante. June 27, 2005.
Mike Godwin. Don’t Stop Grokkin.’ Reason Online. June 27, 2005.
SCOTUSBlog. Deepening Disappointment. June 27, 2005.
Hilary Rosen. The Wisdom of the Court, Part 2. The Huffington Post. June 27, 2005.
The Patry Copyright Blog. The Court Punts. June 27, 2005.
Blog Maverick. Kaboom! No date.
U.S. Supreme Court. On Writ of Certiorari: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, LTD., et al.. (.pdf) June 27, 2005.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Supreme Court Decision in Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a.k.a. "The Betamax case". Jan. 17, 1984.
Publishers Seek Delay for Google’s Digitization Plans
"The Association of American Publishers has asked Google to suspend for six months its plan to digitize books from the collections of several major research libraries and make them searchable online.
"AAP Vice President for Legal and Governmental Affairs Allan R. Adler told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the group made the request in a June 10 letter that stopped short of calling for the project to ‘cease and desist.’ ‘We’ve simply asked for a six-month moratorium to facilitate discussion,’ said Adler.
"Adler said in the June 21 Chronicle that the letter was prompted by AAP members’ concern that they have not ‘gotten satisfactory answers to their questions about copyright infringement.’ It requested a meeting between Google executives and leaders of the publishing association."
American Libraries Online. Publishers’ Group Seeks Six-Month Delay in Google Library Project. June 22, 2005.
See also:
Jeffrey R. Young. Publishers’ Group Asks Google to Stop Scanning Copyrighted Works for 6 Months. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 21, 2005.
Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (.pdf) Monday that software companies can be held liable for copyright infringement when individuals use their technology to download songs and movies illegally.
"The unanimous decision handed the music and movie industries a crucial victory in their ongoing battle to curb Internet piracy — a campaign centered on lobbying for new laws, filing thousands of lawsuits against Internet users, and winning a ruling from the nation’s highest court.
"Their victory Monday on the third piece of that strategy dealt a big blow to technology companies, which claim that holding them accountable for the illegal downloading of songs, movies, video games and other proprietary products would stifle their ability to develop new products."
Krysten Crawford. Hollywood Wins Internet Piracy Battle. CNNMoney.com. June 27, 2005.
See also:
U.S. Supreme Court. On Writ of Certiorari: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, LTD., et al.. (.pdf) June 27, 2005.
News.com Special Coverage. File-Swap Fallout. News.com.
Libe Goad. Supreme Court Deals Blow to P2P Services. eWeek. June 27, 2005.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Grokster Supreme Court Ruling. June 27, 2005.
Electric Frontier Foundation. Supreme Court Sows Uncertainty. Deep Links. June 27, 2005.
Vauhini Vara. A Grokster Primer. WSJ.com. June 27, 2005.
The Wall Street Journal. Grokster Roundtable. June 27, 2005.
National Public Radio. File-Sharing Firms May Be Liable, Says High Court. All Things Considered. June 27, 2005.
COPYCENSE 