0.5 Napster, grokster, and the riaa lawsuits  (Page 3/5)

Grokster

While Napster was being shut down by legal decree, dozens of other programmers were at work. The Napster idea – of free sharing of music and other files by thousands of Internet users – was too big an idea to just go away. Very soon after the demise of Napster, other services such as Grokster, KaZaa, Gnutella, and others became available. (Ante 2000, 112-120). These services operated without a central server or listing of available files, and were able to connect one user directly with another. Monitoring of a service like Grokster or KaZaa could not provide a list of users.

Visitors to the Grokster site could download – for free – peer-to-peer file sharing software. The software allowed computer users to connect directly to each other and trade digitized documents. Grokster did not provide a central server or any support for their activities. Because it was not involved with the user’s activities, the people creating Grokster believed that they were not liable for potential copyright infringement. Grokster sold advertising both for its web site and for spots inside the software, only seen when the software was running (Woellert 2004, 50-51).

Grokster was very popular. Not surprisingly, the music and movie companies took legal action. The RIAA and MPAA brought suit against Grokster in the Los Angeles Federal Court in 2003. The court upheld the Grokster argument, based on the earlier case, Sony Corp v. Universal Studios (1984), in which the Supreme Court determined that a software or device with “substantial non-infringing uses” could not be held liable for some users who chose to infringe upon copyrights (Woellert 2004, 50-51). The RIAA and MPAA were able to appeal this ruling to the 9 ^th Circuit Court of appeals, which also ruled in favor of Grokster. “The lower courts found the intent of the network operators was irrelevant if there was not actual participation in the illegal copying activity” (Kemp 2007, 81-89). Because the first two trials ruled in favor of Grokster, it is relatively easy to find news articles declaring the victory of Grokster over the music industry. Don’t be misled by these articles; Grokster’s fate was determined by the Supreme Court.

The RIAA and MPAA appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which heard the arguments in March of 2005. In June, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Grokster service operated in violation of copyright laws, and could be held liable (Kemp 2007, 81-89). The case is seen as limiting the previous Sony decision, in which substantial non-infringing use could protect a device or service. While it was seen that Grokster’s software could be used for non-infringing purposes, estimates consistently held that 90% of its uses were infringing, and that Grokster’s advertising encouraged such uses. Furthermore, Grokster was found to be inducing its users to infringe on copyright through its advertising, its name (similar to Napster), and its business practice of in-program advertising. More users meant higher rates for advertising, and more users could most easily be found through more music on the system (Anonymous 2005, 916).