RIAA: “This decision lays the groundwork for the dawn of a new day – an opportunity that will bring the entertainment and technology communities even closer together, with music fans reaping the rewards.”
EFF: “This decision relies on a new theory of copyright liability that measures whether manufacturers created their wares with the ‘intent’ of inducing consumers to infringe. It means that inventors and entrepreneurs will not only bear the costs of bringing new products to market, but also the costs of lawsuits if consumers start using their products for illegal purposes.”
Ernest Miller is doing a great job with this. From his notes on the pro-Grokster press conference : Richard Taranto, Farr and Taranto, argued for Grokster: “The second and much more important aspect of what the courts did today was to write a set of standards, the most notable feature of which is the lack of clarity.”
Miller’s own observation over at the Online Journal Legal Roundtable: “I think that the Court has done a pretty good job of pre-empting the possibility of much legislative action in Congress. This isn’t the complete victory that either side wanted. However, both sides have won something in this decision. And neither has lost completely.”
We’ll be updating this.
Update:
Dan Glickman, president & CEO, MPAA: “The Supreme Court sent a strong and clear message that businesses based on theft should not and will not be allowed to flourish.”
Gary Shapiro, president and CEO, Consumer Electronics Association: “The immediate impact of today’s ruling is twofold: massive uncertainty and the likelihood of massive legal bills. … With this ruling the Supreme Court has handed a powerful new tool to litigious content creators to stop innovation.”
Mark Cuban: “The MGM Grokster decision wont help the content business make more money. It wont help artists make more money. This deal gave something to both sides, but it gave the most to lawyers and lobbyists … I dont know how it will all turn out. Its probably not as bad as our worst nightmares, but there is the risk that it just might be.” Cuban financially backed the legal effort against MGM.
Subscriber content
?
Subscriber content comes from Gigaom Research, bridging the gap between breaking news and long-tail research. Visit any of our reports to learn more and subscribe.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments have been disabled for this post