Decision allows file sharing suits

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that manufacturers of peer-to-peer downloading programs can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by users.\n"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," said Justice David Souter, who wrote the court's 24-page opinion. \nThe issue was brought to the Supreme Court after MGM sued file-sharing companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks, the parent company of the popular file-sharing program, Morpheus. Lower courts ruled in favor of the file-sharing programs, but the Supreme Court remanded the decision and sent the case back for further review. \n"When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement," wrote Souter. \nConsidered a victory for the entertainment industry, the Supreme Court's message could potentially mean the end for many popular free file-sharing networks still in existence.\nAlthough senior Ilene Blumberg sees the potential legal problem of free downloading, she said the decision could result in a loss for some artists. \n"Downloading music is a good way to hear bands you've never heard," she said. "If I like the songs enough, I buy the CD or support the artist through going to their concerts, whereas if I'd never heard the downloaded songs, I might not have." \nWhile this decision could force many students to change their downloading habits, Merri Beth Lavagnino, deputy information technology policy officer for University Information Technology Services, said the ruling will not create any changes for UITS at the present time. \n"We do not plan on changes in our procedures related to peer-to-peer file sharing as a result of this ruling, unless and until we get direction to do so from University Counsel," she wrote in an e-mail. \nUITS provides information on legal options for obtaining music and movies online at their Web site, www.filesharing.iu.edu. The site also provides a tutorial on copyright infringement and articles on the Digital Millenium Copyright act and the No Electronic Theft act. \nIn a statement on StreamCast's Web site, Morpheus CEO Michael Weiss defended the file-sharing company and expressed hope that the battle is not over. \n"We will continue our David vs. Goliath fight to prove that we operate 100 percent on the right side of the law," he said. "Once all the evidence is put forward, we are confident that it will be proven that Morpheus did not, does not and will not promote or encourage copyright infringement." \nThe federal court that found in favor of Grokster and StreamCast used precedent set in a 1984 case brought against Sony for copyright infringement by means of the VCR. The court found, in Sony's case, that because the VCR was used for taping shows to watch at a more convenient time, the VCR's purpose was not copyright infringement, and thus Sony could not be held liable for copyright violations that occurred with its technology. \nThe Supreme Court argued this case was incorrectly applied to the Grokster and StreamCast case, however, because the file-sharing companies encourage copyright infringement.