I would say I called the Grokster decision. The “substantial non-infringing use” standard did not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it was embedded in a set of considerations concerning the motivations and impact of a company’s business model. In Sony’s case, the Betamax was clearly an innovative new piece of hardware that incidentally enabled copyright infringement. Grokster, in contrast, was a novel way to evade copyright law that incidentally allowed people to share a few legal files. Rather than buying Grokster’s fatuous arguments and mechanistically applying the “substantial non-infringing use” standard where it clearly didn’t make sense, they looked at Grokster’s actual behavior and business model and concluded–correctly in my opinion–that Grokster was obviously a program designed to facilitate copyright infringement.
The interesting question is whether the court has created a new standard, a successor to “substantial non-infringing use”, that will provide the technology industry with a safe harbor for innovation. On a cursory reading, it appears that the opinion is decided narrowly enough–focusing on Grokster’s specific business model and the ample evidence that they fully intended to attract illegal file-traders–that this shouldn’t strike fear into the hearts of future entrepreneurs. As long as a product is designed for a legitimate use, the fact that many of its users engage in piracy shouldn’t put the product under a legal cloud. I could be wrong, though.
(Cross-posted to the Bit Bucket)
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.