While the entertainment industry is cheering the Grokster decision, I am concerned about the issue of vicarious liability and the thwarting of legitimate innovation. I suspect ultimately the decision will be terrific for Trial Lawyers, but not so great for everyone else.

Example:   What does the Grokster decision means for Google? The comapany just rolled out Google Video, a search tool that lets you find video on the Web. Let’s say you use that to find copyrighted material on line and then I download what you find, is Google now viacariously liable under this decision?

Even worse, is there now no bright line standard, as their was in the Beta-Max case. Now, we should expect a ton more litigation, all on a very piecemeal basis. I’ll bet SCOTUS will be forced to revisit this decision after a decade or so.

How will the Grokster case stop the 100 to 200 million PCs that have grokster installed from file swapping? Its decentralized and the company cannot control it.  (hint: it won’t)

The bigger concern is now litigation risk: While file swapping will continue unabated, legitimate innovations and (previously) legal applications may not get venture funded. That’s not good for innovative companies like Apple and TiVo.

I wish the Supremes woulda stuck with their BetaMax decision . . .

Category: Film, Intellectual Property, Music, Technology, Web/Tech

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.

3 Responses to “Supreme Court versus Innovation”

  1. Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays

    High Court Bars Display of Ten Commandments at Ky. Courthouses, but OKs Them at Texas Capitol

  2. TDM says:

    I think the big difference is that while sharing programs are capable of it, there has been less than substantial non-infringing use of the programs. There has been substantial use of publishing programs like the web and BitTorrent to publish original content. The only actual non-infringing content published by sharing programs is stuff copied from the web and the spyware that frequently gets included in free downloads. I hope the loss of Grokster will reduce the demand for legislation that may actually harm publishing programs and threaten BetaMax.

    There may not have been much economic damage from sharing. Payola and independent promoters show that the market price for disposable music is frequently negative. I think the biggest problem is that with most music prices being fixed at zero by sharing there has been much less innovation in micro-payment then there should have been. Music publishing should be the driving innovation for micro-payment both to labels and to individual publishers. Instead, sharing programs have been driving innovation for their paying customers: spammers and spyware publishers. The customer is always right. It is best that the customer be the consumer.

  3. Troy says:

    Apple Computer Won Suit over Beatles
    TechnologyOn Monday, Beatle’s record company took another twist of a long legal road. This was a British Judge ruled that Apple Computer Inc. has the right to se the apple logo on its iTunes Music Store.

    The lawyers of Apple computer defended their client saying that Apple Computer Inc. was conducting a legal business and that music lover will easily identify the differences between the two logos. Apple Corps’ logo is a shiny green apple while Apple Computer uses a cartoon-like apple with a neat bite taken out.

    The 1991 agreement ended previous lengthy litigation over the logo. Apple Computer stated that it even paid Apple Corp $26.5 million as a settlement in exchange of an expanded field of use.

    Turks.US – Daily News