While people may disagree about the appropriate response to
filesharing, its pretty clear to most that if Hollywood embraced and extended P2P,
they would have a fantastic distribution and promotion machine at their

I guess all those file sharers, once they read Souter’s decision for
the majority, will be so compelled by its legal force and arguments
that they will immediately stop swapping.

This decision is meaningless when it comes to P2P behavior, but could
have significant ramifications for tech and content companies. A bad
decision for yechnology and consumers, a good decision for studios and
labels . . .

NOTE:  This now sends this case back to the lower courts for trial


Update:  June 27, 2005 1:37pm

What does the Grokster decision mean for Google? They just rolled out Google Video, a search tool that lets you find video on the Web; If you then download what you find, is Google now viacariously liable?

Scrolling News Resources:

MGM v. Grokster (EFF)

Notes on RIAA and MPAA Press Conference

Pro-Grokster press conference

WSJ Grokster Roundtable   

C/NET File Swap round up



FTC Staff Workshop Report: Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Technology [PDF]

Entertainment Industry Wins High Court Piracy Fight

Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Entertainment Industry In Gokster Case

Court: File-sharing services may be sued

Studios Win Big in Grokster Case

Supreme Court rules against file swapping


Category: Film, Music

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

7 Responses to “Grokster Decision is meaningless to filesharers”

  1. royce says:

    It’s odd that in the same legal system that says gun manufacturers can’t be held liable for what people do with their products, a tech company that makes file-sharing software can.

    And should I not have downloaded that movie trailer for “War of the Worlds”? You know, the one that’s supposed to encourage me to go see the stupid movie….Terrible thing that I downloaded it…..

  2. JJ says:

    The Supremes seem to be saying that intellectual property rights are on par with real property rights. which is all well and good. But does this mean that local governments can condemn the “unused, decaying or underutilized” intellectual property of its citizens and use that
    intellectual property for their own – the greater good- economic benefit???

  3. TG says:

    This will only send the people that develop this technology off shore to countries that don’t care (translated: won’t enforce such stupid laws), China, Korea, India, Russia, etc because the record companies aren’t located there. Hence it will reduce jobs and tech development inside the US.

  4. rob says:

    this will not put a single penny of additional revenue into the coffers of the record labels.

  5. Ted says:

    So the supreme court justices took a look at the file sharing companies and said to their lower courts, in a unanimous decision, “The filesharing companies are doing WHAT?! You gotta be kidding us. This is clearly illegal, now get back in there and shut these guys down!”

    Like, no kidding. These companies are building businesses off of the theft of copyrighted material. Of course that’s illegal. The justices have sent a message that the US will not tolerate businesses built on the theft of copyrighted material.

  6. The Chemist says:

    file sharing is old news, come swap ribbons!

  7. Quimby says:

    This is stupid. Do you suppose, now, that copy machine companies will held liable for all the times that I photocopy whole books at the library? Perhaps they will start prosecuting the libraries too. True I should not do photocopy books, but who is liable?