Supreme Court Reverses Grokster
From CNN
In MGM v. Grokster, the high court unanimously overturned a ruling that had barred Hollywood and the music industry from suing Internet services used by consumers to swap songs and movies for free.
“One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses,” Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
But Monday’s ruling by the nation’s highest court does not end the battle. The Supreme Court order sends the case back for trial to the same lower court that had originally ruled in favor of Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the file-sharing services named in the case.
Here’s the actual ruling (pdf)
update:
copyfight with links and comments
slashdot discussion
Boing Boing links to blogs and resources
Update2:
Ernest Miller with notes from the eff press conference
Update3:
grokster press conference audio (mp3) via Boing Boing
Update4:
Commentary from Ken “Caesar” Fisher at Ars including:
From my reading of the decision, there has been little actual clarity given to the question of what constitutes promotion and encouragement, outside from some ideal statements about the encourage being obvious. Of course, is Apple’s “Rip. Mix. Burn.” encouragement? Remember: the RIAA certainly thought so.