The cast of the ongoing peer-to-peer drama
Published: 28 Jun 2005 18:10 BST
Consumer groups: Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America have spoken out sharply in favour of file-swapping software companies, saying that peer-to-peer software can be used for protected political speech and can have benefits to consumers. The groups stop short of endorsing copyright infringement, but they've said consumer behaviour can be explained by record labels' "anticompetitive" behaviour.
Consumer electronics companies: The Consumer Electronics Association has played one of the most visible roles in challenging the copyright holders, all the way up to arranging for protesters holding "Save Betamax" signs in front of the Supreme Court on the day of the Grokster hearing. The group's companies are deeply indebted to the Betamax decision and argue vociferously that anything merely "capable of substantial noninfringing use" remain legal.
State attorneys general: A group of 39 state attorneys general petitioned the court in favour of the copyright holders, saying that the unrestricted peer-to-peer services were encouraging innovation that ignores, and therefore encourages, lawlessness. They say P2P companies that deliberately construct their networks to prevent themselves from seeing infringement — which they know exists in huge quantities — should be held liable.
Christian Coalition: An odd pairing if ever there was one. The conservative Christian organisation and several allies joined the cause of Hollywood and the record labels, saying that the lower courts' decisions could lead to a proliferation of anonymous, untraceable child pornography.
Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers: The IEEE petitioned the court without supporting either side, saying that courts had strayed from traditional intellectual-property rules in recent years. In an argument that several Supreme Court justices initially appeared deeply sympathetic to, the group argued that products having substantial noninfringing uses should be legal, unless their parent companies actively induced customers to act illegally.
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
245 out of 464 people found this useful
- Share this article:
