A meaningless court win?

Early in the morning of July 4, NASA purposefully crashed an 820-pound chunk of metal into a comet at about 23,000 mph. The flight of the Deep Impact probe, which started in early January as the third part of a billion-dollar mission, was designed to see what makes up a comet.

Just a week earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to strike the recording industry hard enough to see what it is made of, but struck a glancing blow instead.

The Grokster saga has taken a lot longer than the Deep Impact mission and is not yet over. In May 2003, I wrote about the original summary judgment that said Grokster was not liable for copyright violations, then again about a year later when an Appeals Court upheld the original decision.

Now the Supreme Court has spoken a non-final word, deciding that Grokster could be liable for the copyright violations of its users. That is, if Grokster distributed software “with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action.”

The Court found enough evidence of fostering infringement to overturn the original summary judgment and send the case back for a trial.

I had hoped the court would uphold the original judgment. I am not a supporter of the endless extensions of copyright that have been a feature of our government for the lobbyists for far too long. Nor am I a supporter of the entertainment industry’s myopic focus on shooting messengers rather than developing new messages. I was hoping the Supreme Court would strike a blow to the entertainment industry that would have forced it to wake up and actually do some thinking about ways to provide services to its customers.

But the court decision might be as meaningless as Hilary Rosen, former head of the Recording Industry Association of America, asserts it will in an interview published in The New York Times on July 4.

The decision, and the forthcoming court case (assuming Grokster does not just fold its tent and fade away, leaving its software alive, spreading and likely unstoppable), are far from the last words on this topic.

Disclaimer: Harvard was involved in Deep Impact, but I know of no university opinion on the impact of the Grokster decision.

QuickLink: 050029

–Bradner is a consultant with Harvard University’s University Information Systems. He can be reached at [email protected].

Would you recommend this article?


Thanks for taking the time to let us know what you think of this article!
We'd love to hear your opinion about this or any other story you read in our publication.

Jim Love, Chief Content Officer, IT World Canada

Featured Download

Featured Articles

Cybersecurity in 2024: Priorities and challenges for Canadian organizations 

By Derek Manky As predictions for 2024 point to the continued expansion...

Survey shows generative AI is a top priority for Canadian corporate leaders.

Leaders are devoting significant budget to generative AI for 2024 Canadian corporate...

Related Tech News

Tech Jobs

Our experienced team of journalists and bloggers bring you engaging in-depth interviews, videos and content targeted to IT professionals and line-of-business executives.

Tech Companies Hiring Right Now