Supreme Court to hear arguments in Grokster case – And that’s the end of Grokster, and, possibly, commercial P2P! It will be interesting to see how the Court rules on this…there is little doubt it will be on the side of the MP/RIAA, but how, and what type of compromise they reach, is an open question.
Aside
I’m kinda split on this one. On the one hand, I really hate the fact that the MPAA/RIAA are trying to make technologies that could transform the way that thing are distributed illegal. On the other hand, is Grokster used to legitimately distribute anything? No, Grokster is only used for illegal purposes.
Now, BitTorrent is very different. First, most of the anonymity of it is gone because one has to post the torrent file somewhere on the web which makes it a ton easier to identify who is swapping bad files and who is swapping legit files. BitTorrent also allows companies like Red Hat to distribute their files without putting as heavy a load on their servers. I could easily see a future with BitTorrent integrated into Firefox (and possibly other browsers) so that they could download files from torrents just as easily as they download from FTP – wow, that would be awesome.
Everyone goes back to the Betamax case, as this article has too. As the article notes, the primary use of VCR’s recording features was to “time-shift” material – a LEGAL act. This also applies to copy-machines who are primarily used for making copies of something someone is allowed to for distribution. Same with CD burners which are often used to create mix CDs and such. The primary use of Grokster/Kazaa/et. al. is for infringing copyright.
I think the big issue is that p2p allows an anonymity that an FTP archive, a BitTorrent file, selling bootleg-CDs on the street allow. If I am on the street with bootleg-CDs for sale, anyone walking by can see who I am and if the RIAA walks by, they can call the police on me. The same applies to BitTorrent where my site that has the torrent file on it can be pretty easily identified as mine or my FTP server hosting the files can be identified as mine. Maybe we need a law saying that p2p users must be able to be identified easily.
Both sides of this argument seem hypocritical to me. On one side, the EFF just defends p2p, not electronic freedom. Why do I say this? Because they said that the industry shouldn’t be going after Kazaa/et. al. and rather the infringing users, but once the RIAA took them up on that offer, they started defending the users. The EFF supports a right to piracy – which is OK to support as long as you don’t try to pass it off as something else. The other side (MPAA/RIAA) want to eliminate these technologies because they see a chance for more money – and not just the money they would possibly gain from reduced piracy. They see the current copyright struggle as a chance to get rid of fair-use entirely. They see a world where I would buy a DVD for my TV, need to buy another disc that would be compatible with my computer, etc. They see the possibility of nickle and diming us for all that we’re worth.
Can’t people see a decent middle ground?