EFF reports: Ninth Circuit Declares Grokster, Morpheus Not Liable for Infringement . EFF has the decision in PDF format. Sufficient non-infringing uses saved the widely-used Peer-to-Peer (P2P) technology from charges from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) plaintiffs that Grokster, Sharman Networks and Streamcast Networks had contributed to copyright infringement by those using its software and systems.
The decision has been compared to the Betamax decision years ago by the United States Supreme Court.
Read more ...
Plaintiffs ("Copyright Owners" in the decision) alleged that over 90% of the files exchanged through use of the “peer-to-peer” file-sharing software in question involve copyrighted material, 70% of which is owned by the Copyright Owners. This was sufficient, argued the Copyright Owners, for a finding of vicarious and contributory copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 501-13 (2000). In April, 2003, the District Court disagreed and granted partial summary judgment to defendant software companies, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (“Grokster I”) and the Copyright Owners appealed.
The three-judge panel found that the District Court's application of the Betamax standard was correct, saying:
In this case, the Software Distributors have not only shown
that their products are capable of substantial noninfringing
uses,[fn 10] but that the uses have commercial viability. Thus,
applying Napster I, Napster II, and Sony-Betamax to the
record, the district court correctly concluded that the Software
Distributors had established that their products were capable
of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses.
Therefore, the district correctly reasoned, the Software Distributors
could not be held liable for constructive knowledge
of infringement, and the Copyright Owners were required to
show that the Software Distributors had reasonable knowledge
of specific infringement to satisfy the threshold knowledge
requirement.
The Court's analysis found that the inherent nature of the defendants' Gnutella-type network and KaZaa-type network isolated them from knowledge of specific infringement.
Posted by dougsimpson at August 20, 2004 07:14 PM | TrackBack