Advertisement
Promo

Online business Toolkit

The cast of the ongoing peer-to-peer drama

John Borland CNET News

Published: 28 Jun 2005 18:10 BST

  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendly
  • Post Comment

The Supreme Court's review of file-swapping — and by extension, of the legal protections afforded to a host of mainstream technologies — has drawn interest from all corners, and Monday's decision won't stop the debate.

Copyright companies are pitted against technology manufacturers; conservative Christians are allied with Hollywood; government agencies at all levels are opposing venture capitalists. Here's a quick guide to some of the key players in the debate, what they've said, and why they care.

Copyright's knights
Copyright holders: The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) have been trying to force file-swapping software companies out of business since Napster's rise.

The RIAA blames rampant file-swapping in part for the substantial decline in music sales worldwide over the past four years, and says services such as Grokster are unfair competition for legal stores like iTunes. There's little sign that Hollywood's revenues are going down, but the MPAA says studios lost $3.5bn (£1.9bn) to physical piracy in 2004, which doesn't count the huge numbers of movies being swapped online.

All three groups are pressing for either a court or a legislative solution that would let them sue file-swapping companies, but for the last year, the RIAA, MPAA and their internation counterparts have instead turned their legal guns on individuals.

US government: The Solicitor General's office joined the copyright holders on the floor of the Supreme Court, arguing that intellectual-property protection was critical to the US economy. The office proposed modifying existing law to say that if a product is "overwhelmingly used" for infringement, and if a business depends on those illicit uses, then the company ought to be held liable.

Next

Previous

1 2 3


  • Email
  • Trackback
  • Clip Link
  • Print friendlyPrint with EPSON

Did you find this article useful?
246 out of 465 people found this useful


Full Talkback thread

0 comments

Sentry Posts Blog

McKinnon lawyers seek judicial review

Lawyers seeking a judicial review for Nasa hacker Gary McKinnon lodged fresh evidence of his psychiatric state at the High Court on Thursday. Karen Todner, McKinnon's solicitor,... More

1 comment

Beware of keeping your head in the clo...

Information security professionals can look forward to a deepening appreciation for their skills as security continues to be recognised as an essential element for doing business in... More

1 comment

Civil liberties groups attack file-sha...

Civil liberties and digital rights organisations have strongly criticised Lord Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill. Liberty said in a position paper on Tuesday that the bill, part of... More

Post a comment

Video icon

Video

Google Chrome

Roundup: Full coverage of Google Chrome

The search giant has launched a beta of its own open-source browser, sending a clear challenge to Microsoft in the way it lets users work with applications More

Blog: Google Chrome has Microsoft's code inside, says MS manager

And furthermore, he says, that's a good thing... More

Blog: Google Chrome — nine things we've found since launch

Google must be very happy with the coverage Chrome has gathered. But it's not all good news... More


Skip Sub Navigation Links to CNET Brand Links

Help

Become part of the ZDNet community.

Newsletters