For intellectual-property attorneys, the lead-up to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the MGM vs. Grokster case was like being in a crowded sports bar before the Super Bowl.
Bets were placed on the outcome of the ultimate showdown between two formidable teams. Everyone had an opinion on the players and we all followed every play. In football, once the fans leave and the stadium is cleared, a new season begins and every team starts from scratch again. But this particular court ruling is just the beginning. Now we have to figure out the implications and advise clients how the ruling affects their business.
Read the complete article
Interesting illustration.
Basically it comes down whether or not Streamcast and Groksters actions were encouraging copyright infringement not on the legality of P2P software which is still considered legal in the US. So basically they have gone back to the begin only now they can be held liable for previous actions.
Basically Streamcast and Grokster will loose but I think Bram Cohen (bit torrent) would win as his software seems to have originally been intended for legal use. That doesn't mean he won't be sued though.
keep fightin on Grokster
we will overcome
it is interesting though - the situation that they r in
however they have a couple of options
Whoever uses Grokster anyway?
Grokster are developing Mashboxx for Wayne Russo so all that will happen is they will have some sweetheart deal with the RIAA on paper and just like iMesh and Napster did before them continue down the pay for download model..
Streamcast on the other hand will go down the gurgler if they lose.
I went and checked out this so called... ''grokster'', and i nearly puked. So if they want to get into bed with the law, let them... clearly a waste of time even downloading the software, absolutely.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks