[17R3W]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

The entertainment industry said it needed protection against the billions of dollars in revenue they lose to illegal swapping. Consumer groups worried that expanded liability will stifle the technology revolution of the last two decades that brought video cassette recorders, MP3 players and Apple's iPod.

The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.

But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

t's unclear how much the decision will actually deter the widespread problem of piracy since software programs created abroad won't be subject to the tougher U.S. copyright laws. Still, analysts say the court's stern rebuke should provide a boost to many file-sharing services that offer legal downloading for a fee.

http://engadget.com/entry/1234000680048344/

Originally Posted by Engadget

Grokster loses

Posted Jun 27, 2005, 11:20 AM ET by Peter Rojas
Related entries: Desktops, Home Entertainment, Laptops

This is slightly outside of our jurisdiction as a gadget site, but screw it, this news is too big: Grokster just lost. By a unanimous vote the Supreme Court held that software developers are violating federal when they create file sharing applications and then also take “affirmative steps to foster infringement.” It’s hard to conceive of all the wide-ranging implications of this ruling. Sure it’ll mean that the record labels and movie studios can sue the heck out of P2P companies that facilitate unauthorized file swapping, but the real question is, what consititutes an “affirmative step to foster infringment”? Seems vague enough to apply to all sorts of stuff, and no doubt the RIAA and MPAA are uncorking the Cris right now.

How do you feel about this?
Will this affect products like X-Rom?