After the Kelo decision, I despaired of
anything approaching sound decision-making from the Supreme Court, but
apparently they got it right on Grokster.
In other words, there is no carved-out area of freedom from legal liability just because you're employing some "new and exciting" technology. The lower court seemed to want to shield file-sharing companies from liability out of concern that lawsuits might strangle an incipient technology.
Hopefully, the precedent from this will be that exciting new incipient technologies still have to comply with the law, and don't get some incubatory period free of liability while they build brands and market share.
Now, another question is why it's wrong for your high school daughter to download songs, but yet your local government can come along and take your home away from you and give it to someone else . . .
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
In other words, there is no carved-out area of freedom from legal liability just because you're employing some "new and exciting" technology. The lower court seemed to want to shield file-sharing companies from liability out of concern that lawsuits might strangle an incipient technology.
Hopefully, the precedent from this will be that exciting new incipient technologies still have to comply with the law, and don't get some incubatory period free of liability while they build brands and market share.
Now, another question is why it's wrong for your high school daughter to download songs, but yet your local government can come along and take your home away from you and give it to someone else . . .