Billionaire backs defendant in landmark P2P case
Published: 29 Mar 2005 12:10 BST
Billionaire Mark Cuban has announced that he will finance Grokster's defence against MGM's peer-to-peer lawsuit, which is expected to be argued before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Cuban, the entrepreneur who sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo for $5.7bn and who is now president of HDNet, a provider of high-definition TV programming, wrote in a blog entry on Saturday that he had agreed to fund the software company's defence after he was approached by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others.
The case centres on whether file-sharing software companies could be held legally responsible for copyright infringement on their networks.
Cuban, who's also the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, said a Grokster loss would create a stifling legal environment that would virtually eliminate technological innovation in the United States.
"If Grokster loses, technological innovation might not die, but it will have such a significant price tag associated with it, it will be the domain of the big corporations only," Cuban wrote. "It will be a sad day when American corporations start to hold their US digital innovations and inventions overseas to protect them from the RIAA, moving important jobs overseas with them."
Cuban said his decision was also motivated by the fact that lengthy court cases have prohibitively high legal costs.
"It doesn't matter that the RIAA has been wrong about innovations and the perceived threat to their industry every single time," Cuban wrote. "It just matters that they can spend more [than] everyone else on lawyers."
The case focuses on Grokster and StreamCast Networks' Morpheus, popular file-swapping applications that are widely used to trade movies, music and software.
Studios and labels sued the companies in 2001, following successful legal campaigns against peer-to-peer trailblazer Napster. Attorneys for the entertainment conglomerates said the newer file-swapping services were, like Napster, building businesses based on copyright infringement.
But Grokster and StreamCast were built around a different technology than Napster. Their services involved a highly decentralised network of individual computers trading files among themselves, rather than a network controlled from a central location.
Lower-court judges said that the companies do not directly control what happens on their networks, that their software could be used for legal purposes and that the companies themselves aren't legally responsible for the actions of their users. The entertainment companies' appeal of that judgment led to the Supreme Court's planned hearing of the case on Tuesday.
Did you find this article useful?
55 out of 109 people found this useful
- Share this article:
Full Talkback thread
4 comments
