Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Get this:

The court hears arguments tomorrow in a suit by music and movie companies against Grokster, which makes "peer to peer" software that allows Internet users to exchange songs and other computer files. At least 90 percent of the material "shared" on Grokster, and perhaps more, is copyrighted. Grokster gives away the software, but it sells advertising aimed at the millions of people who use it.

Many big entertainment companies are backing the suit, along with marquee-name musicians like the Eagles and the Dixie Chicks. But so are some creative professionals - represented by groups like the Authors Guild and the Professional Photographers of America - for whom even a few thousand dollars in royalties makes a big difference.

The technology community has rallied to Grokster's defense. Its most radical members argue that "information wants to be free" online and disparage the whole idea of intellectual property. A more modest argument, and one Grokster relies on in court, is that if it loses, there will be a chilling effect on technological innovation.

The legal case against Grokster is far from a slam-dunk, and we have been wary of it in the past. The court ruled, in a landmark 1984 case, that Betamax video recorders were legal even though they were used to copy copyrighted material, because they had significant legal uses. It is true that there are legal uses for Grokster - not every file exchanged is copyrighted. But it is notable how much illegal use predominates, and how much its business model relies on theft.

Far from a slam dunk indeed. The SCOTUS ruled in Betamax that as long as "substantial noninfringining uses exist", then a technology can't be banned outright. That doesn't mean as the IP McCarthyists out there are pushing that "if the majority of use is non-infringing".

Let's face it, in 1982 the majority of use of VCRs was infringing. It took the MPAA 2 decades to wake up to the fact that if they sold movies for $15 and not $115 they could make ambient assloads of money.

That however, is not what the line is. Next, it is hilarious how it is The Dixie Chicks and the Eagles lining up against Grokster, but it is the "Crazy IP anarchists" on their side. We pass over the fact that the bill is being footed by Mark Cuban, that Grokster has Amicus briefs from Microsoft, Intel and IBM. But we have to talk about "the more radical" elements.

Fuck you, NYT. Your editorial page reeks of your our saturation with the media empire business.