I'm supposed to be on holidays from blogging this week, but this is too important not to blog RIGHT NOW.
EFF has won its Grokster case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — this is the case that establishes that if you make truly decentralized P2P software — like Gnutella — you can't be held liable for any copyright infringement that takes place on their networks. This is the "Betamax principle," from the famous Supreme Court case that established that Sony wasn't responsible for any infringement that its customers undertook with their VCRs.
The Studios' argument was that people who make P2P software should be obliged to build it in such a way as to make it easy to police — i.e. not on Gnutella-like lines — an idea so sickeningly dumb that it's a tremendous relief that the court refused to buy it.
Now is a good time to download the 16MB MP3 audio of EFF IP Attorney Fred von Lohmann's oral argument in the appeal — he was nothing less than brilliant (and it didn't hurt that one of the shmendricks representing the rights-holders kept forgetting the judge's name). This is some of the best courtroom drama you'll ever hear, and when you're done, download the PDF of the decision below and rejoice in our freedom.
I don't often shill for donations to EFF here on Boing Boing, but if there is one day this year that you make a tax-deductible donation to the organization that just won the right to write any software you damn well please, even if it's not amenable to being wiretapped by the record labels, today is it.
It's a good day.
"The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners' immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.
"Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player.Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.
"Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As the Supreme Court stated in that case, "The direction of Art. I is that Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from Congress." 464 U.S. at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518, 530 (1972))."
