StreamCast and Grokster have just filed a joint brief [PDF] asking the Supreme Court to leave standing the landmark Ninth Circuit ruling [PDF] that the two peer-to-peer software distributors are not liable for copyright violations by the people who use their software. At stake in the case is the continued vitality of the Betamax doctrine -- what Fred von Lohmann calls the "Magna Carta of the technology industry" because it "makes it clear that innovators need not fear ruinous litigation from the entertainment industry so long as their inventions are 'merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.'"
The primary arguments are 1.) the Ninth Circuit ruled correctly in light of Betamax, 2.) it ruled consistently with other P2P decisions in federal courts, and 3.) if copyright law needs to be adjusted in light of P2P, that task properly falls to Congress.
Bonus links:
- StreamCast and Grokster File Supreme Court Brief [EFF]
- Stop the State AGs from Supporting Cert [Ernest Miller, Importance Of...]
- Big Media Attacks Betamax in Court [Fred von Lohmann, Deep Links]
- MGM & Co. petition for certiorari [PDF, EFF website]
- Ninth Circuit ruling [PDF. EFF website]
- Oral Arguments before the Ninth Circuit [MP3, EFF website] and transcript [courtesy of Groklaw]
Category: Laws and Regulations
Hi there,
I am a copyright lawyer here in Australia and am watching all these developments with interest. Folks may well be aware that another similarly minded and important P2P case is afoot here with Sony et al suing Sharman Networks in substantially the same causes of action.
Having now see that both parties’ petitions appear to be submitted for the Supreme Court’s consideration about whether to grant certiorari, could I ask if someone might be able to explain how things now move thorough the Supreme Court process from here? I saw Tim Wu’s comments a few months ago on Lessig’s blog reckoning that the Court will most likely grant certiorari. My question is: can someone explain how long it is presumed the deciding process will now take by the court? As a follow up, what either might be expected to do next tactically as a result?
Many thanks,
Michael
Tracked on November 11, 2004 12:02 AM