Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Previous courts have held that "Grokster" and "Morheus" et al are distinguished from "Napster" in that a central repository of shared files is not used, but rather they are "peer to peer" networks. As such the developers of the software that enable the peers to work together are not responsible for what the peers themselves do (should they swap copyrighted files, etc).

Tomorrow the SCOTUS will hear the case as an appeal to them made by the music and entertainment industries was accepted.

Yes Grokster and Morpheus enable people to swap files illegally, but they also allow people to swap legal files, the do not distinguish. It is the responsibility of the user to use any software legally, and you cannot reasonably expect the developers of the software that performs a generic function like "share files", to be held responsible if users do not use it legally. Sure the music and entertainment industries have a problem with illegal files and sure they have a legitimate grip against SPECIFIC USERS that are proven to be swapping illegal files. That is very different from a gripe against the makers of software that allows users to swap files. Huge logical leap to connect those dots.

That said I understand why the music and entertainment industries are bringing the case, they want to shut down any possibility of lost revenues anywhere, and they have a systemic policy of treating their customers very poorly.

I have said it before but here goes, the music and entertainment industries are way behind the times and fighting a silly battle here. These industries need to focus more on delivering a reasonably priced product in a manner their customers WANT (rather than will live with but have gripes about). If they sold their "media" files online, reasonably priced (iTunes so on) WITHOUT SILLY ASS DRM (I can copy it as many times as I want to whatever devices I want, once I own it) then people would simply buy more of them and not bother with other methods. They should make their methods of obtaining files quick, convenient, digital, unencumbered, and they will sell more. Sure some people will still pirate things, and they have every right to go after those people on an INDIVIDUAL basis, but these companies would be better served by putting more energy into providing what their customers want in a manner their customers want it (e.g. they would make more money) than fighting legal battles that could severely impact technologies themselves (hell who came up with an electronic audio format people loved - MP3? was it the RIAA or the MPAA? - these companies MAKE MONEY from technology yet at every turn they attempt to control and stifle it).

If "Morpheus" and "Grokster" are illegal means of sharing files what about regular networks, what about that thing called "email" where you can have those potentially illegal things called "attachments", what about those "cd's" and "dvd's" that hold "data"? Should we sue the developers of those products and hold them liable for every file ever emailed or copied onto a disk and so on that was not legally owned? Hell we should sue Tim Berners Lee (and all the universities he attended) for that stupid ass interconnected network of computers idea, he started it.

The RIAA and MPAA are absurd and I hope the Supreme Court at least holds them off on this front.

Join the EFF (whom is defending the makers of Morpheus in this case) and help stop all this kind of nonsense (nonsense which seems rampant in our judiciary at present, thanks to the likes of the MPAA and RIAA and other large companies hoping to trample the hell all over individual rights).

  MGM v. Grokster