The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has won the Grokster case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling establishes that if you develop a highly decentralized (and, thus, unmonitered from a central location) P2P system, you can’t be held liable if folks do stuff that copyright owners don’t like. The copyright violators can get in trouble, but you can’t. It’s the same principle (and was argued as such) as the famous Supreme Court Betamax case, which held that just because folks will use VCRs in a way that violates copyrights doesn’t mean that copyright holders can go after the VCR manufacturers for damages (or block their manufacture).
From the closing argument:
The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners’ immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.
[…] The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player.Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.
The decision is here.
(via BoingBoing)