The case is due to be heard on 29th March, an appeal by the
entertainment industry against two file-sharing service providers –
Streamcast Networks Inc, the company behind the Morpheus
file-sharing software, and Grokster Ltd.
The Supreme Court hearing is expected to focus on the meaning of
its 21-year-old decision on Sony's Betamax video recorder. In the
early 1980s, the device was said to infringe the copyrights of TV
and movie studios; but Sony won the case because the machine also
had significant non-infringing uses.
According to the Washington Post, Acting Solicitor General Paul
D Clement has asked the Court to overturn the Betamax ruling. On
behalf of the US Government, which is not a party to the case,
Clement argues that "the overwhelming use of respondents' networks
is infringing, and it appears likely that most if not all of
respondents' revenues are derived from that infringement".
In a separate brief the Information Technology Association of
America, NetCoalition, Digital Media Association, and the Center
for Democracy and Technology ask the Supreme Court to uphold the
ruling.
Application of Sony Betamax test, says the coalition of tech
groups, has promoted the explosion of technological innovation
since the mid-1980's – everything from the personal computer to
digital music players and the rise of the internet itself. But the
test does not immunise a vendor's other conduct, say the groups. It
does not allow vendors to actively encourage users to violate
copyright laws.
So the tech groups want the Supreme Court to send the case back
to a lower court for it to decide whether Grokster's and
Streamcast's conduct amounted to the kind of bad behaviour that is
recognised as contributory or vicarious copyright infringement.
The tech groups' brief also asks the Court to clarify that the
Sony Betamax test does not require an examination of whether a
technology could have been redesigned to reduce infringing uses;
and there's no need to weigh the cost of doing so against the
benefits of reduced infringement, they say.
A separate brief from the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers-USA (IEEE-USA) says much the same thing: a
provider of technology with lawful and unlawful uses should not be
liable for the infringements of users unless the provider has
actively induced the user to infringe.
The case began with Grokster and Streamcast being accused by the
movie and music industries of providing the means for countless
file-swappers illegally to copy and share copyrighted music,
software and films over the internet. It was dismissed by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2004 on the grounds that, while
the companies provide the software used by file-sharers to swap
illegally copied digital files, the software can also be used for
legitimate purposes.
The Court was also hesitant to extend the scope of copyright law
to cope with developing new technologies, as the entertainment
industry was urging.
