Story Published:
Mar 28, 2005 at 11:30 PM PST
Story Updated:
Aug 31, 2006 at 12:53 AM PST
WASHINGTON, D.C. - When the Supreme Court justices were growing
up, swapping music meant exchanging vinyl records. And sharing a
movie involved walking someone to the cinema.
Today many of the latest hit songs and movies are a few mouse
clicks away on the Internet, and those same justices are being
asked to settle a multibillion-dollar dispute about how such items
are shared.
Entertainment companies want the court to let them sue the
manufacturers of file-sharing software that allows computer users
to download music and movies from each other's computers. The
companies say such downloads violate copyright protections and
amount to stealing.
Lower courts have sided with the software makers, Grokster Inc.
and StreamCast Networks, which say their technology should be
looked at no differently than a videocassette recorder.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday and will issue a
decision before July.
How the justices rule could redefine how consumers can watch
television shows and films and listen to songs that increasingly
are delivered in digital formats. Supporters of file-sharing
technology say a ruling against the software companies could
effectively give the entertainment industry a legal veto over
up-and-coming gadgets; they fear the threat of expensive lawsuits
could hamper development of new devices.
The case has star power on both sides.
Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and other musicians
are backing the major recording labels, saying their livelihoods
are threatened if millions of people can obtain their songs for
nothing.
About 20 independent recording artists, including musician and
producer Brian Eno, rockers Heart and rapper-activist Chuck D,
support the file-sharing technology. They say it allows greater
distribution of their music and limits the power of huge record
companies.
Regardless of the outcome, it still won't be legal to download
copyrighted materials over the Internet without permission, though
tens of millions of computer users do so each day. And any ruling
won't affect thousands of copyright lawsuits filed individually
against Internet users caught sharing music and movies online.
But a victory for the entertainment companies would allow
lawsuits that could drive companies that make file-sharing software
out of business. It also would effectively overturn rules that have
governed technology companies for more than two decades:
Manufacturers can't be sued for copyright violations committed by
customers using their products illegally.
Dan Glickman, head of the Motion Picture Association of America,
said the film industry will keep trying to get consumers to buy
legal digital movies. "Consumers want a legal, hassle-free,
reasonable-cost way to get their products online," he said in an
interview Monday with editors from The Associated Press.
Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the Recording Industry
Association of America, told the AP editors: "We are doing all the
things we should be doing to move into this digital age. That is
true no matter what the outcome" of the case being heard Tuesday.
The entertainment companies face an uphill battle with the high
court.
The trial judge and a U.S. appeals court quoted the Supreme
Court in ruling the same file-sharing software millions of people
use to steal music and movies also can be used for "substantial"
legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or
government documents. They reasoned that gave the software's
manufacturers protection from copyright lawsuits based on acts by
their customers.
In his April 2003 ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of
Los Angeles compared Grokster's software to copying machines, which
can be used to make both legal and illegal copies.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit agreed, praising the trial judge for his "well reasoned
analysis" and warning against the "unwise" expansion of
copyright laws.
The trial court and appeals court based their decisions on the
1984 Supreme Court "Betamax" case. The justices ruled Sony Corp.
couldn't be sued for copyright infringement if some customers used
their VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.
Entertainment companies argue the file-sharing companies should
not have blanket protection from copyright lawsuits, especially
when they know about and profit from wide-scale piracy. Court
documents said some file-sharing software companies earned millions
of dollars annually from advertisements built into their software,
and ad revenues climb as more people use the software.
Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general hired by the
entertainment companies, said the threshold for liability "is so
high that basically if there's any conceivable legitimate use of
the system it passes the test. That standard has got to be
rejected."
Olson's former law firm represented Sony in the 1984 case.
The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.