Supreme Court Grokster Ruling June 27 (LJ NewsWire)

[Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Thanks to LJN for this cogent accounting.  Ann Okerson/Moderator

_____

Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM)
The Publishing Report
June 28, 2005

*************************************************************
In This Issue
I. TODAY'S NEWS
--No Surprise, Google Print a major draw at ALA annual conference
--In stunner, Supreme Court remands Grokster case back to lower court
--Some slams Supreme Court decision as chilling, but others see a
  silver lining
--Tale of two libraries: behind the major swings in this year's ARL
  rankings
--New president, board for IFLA

[SNIP]

-----------------------------------------
IN STUNNER, SUPREME COURT REMANDS GROKSTER CASE BACK TO LOWER COURT

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that makers of peer-to-peer
file-sharing software can be held accountable for the infringement of
users and added a new twist--intent. In a strongly-worded decision,
Justice David Souter, writing for the Court in the case of MGM v. Groskter
(see LJ Academic Newswire 4/29/03), said that if technology makers showed
explicit intent to induce infringement and were aware of users' infringing
activities, they could be held liable. "One who distributes a device with
the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright," Souter wrote, "as
shown by clear expression of other affirmative steps...is liable for
infringement." Souter explained that, at its core, the case was about the
"tension between competing values of supporting creativity through
copyright protection and promoting technological innovation."

Souter's comments in his written decision reflected the exasperation of
the plaintiffs, all major entertainment groups, who have argued that
rampant digital piracy is hurting their businesses. "When a widely-shared
product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce
rights in the protected work effectively," Souter conceded. "The only
practical alternative," he argued, "is to go after the device's
distributor for secondary liability." The decision, however, does not
bring about an end to the case. Rather, with the Court's broad ruling to
assess "intent" now in play, the case was remanded to the lower courts,
which have taken a more narrowly focused, technological view in ruling
against the entertainment industry in two previous rulings. Whereas Souter
wrote that it may be impossible to enforce copyright in the digital realm,
the lower courts seem to put more trust in the market. "The introduction
of new technology is always disruptive of old markets, and particularly to
those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established
distribution mechanisms," wrote Judge Sidney R. Thomas on behalf of the
Ninth Circuit in his August 2003 ruling for the defendants. "Yet, history
has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in
balancing interests."

-----------------------------------------
SOME SLAM SUPREME COURT DECISION AS CHILLING, BUT OTHERS SEE A SILVER
LINING

-----------------

[SNIP SNIP]

Copyright (c) 2005 Library Journal. All rights reserved.

Redistribution allowed only via E-mail delivery or print- out/photocopy
distribution within 60 days of original transmission and only to
individuals affiliated with the institution which received the original
E-mail from Library Journal. "Library Journal" is a registered trademark.
"Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.

####