Want to have a better idea of what the MGM v. Grokster case is really about? Have a look at this:
"Recording industry executive Andy Gershon sees opportunity in the online
file-sharing networks that most of his rivals decry as havens for music pirates.
As president of V2 Records, home to such established acts as The White Stripes
and Moby, Gershon mines such Internet distribution channels for new fans and
"The cat is so far out of the bag and so far gone that it’s
pointless to keep fighting it," Gershon said. "I might as well make as many
people fans of our music, whether they illegally download it or not."
A number of mostly independent recording artists and labels
have experimented with and embraced the freewheeling digital distribution that
the Internet affords. And many worry that a victory by major recording companies
in a landmark file-sharing case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could
short-circuit the very technologies that they believe are making a more level
playing field of the music business."
I’ll have more on this subject shortly.
File-sharing case worries Indie artists
Associated Press, 3/25/2005 8:44 AM (USA Today)
Lefsetz observes that "Conventional wisdom is the content companies won, P2P lost. The Grokster decision was heralded as a great day in the fight against file-trading and the establishment of legitimate online services.
The only problem is this is not what Justice Souter’s opinion said.
Justice Souter questioned whether file-trading was even hurting the labels. He restated the essence of Sony Betamax. The judgment didn’t turn on broad intellectual property issues, rather the decision took the form of castigation and liability for heinous behavior."
Below please find from Souter’s decision the actual behavior of Grokster and Streamcast: