The Supreme Court has spoken. And nothing will change.
On June 25 the Supreme Court ruled that the file sharing software Grokster engaged in illegal behavior. The central point, according to the justices, was that Grokster folks "intended" the software to be used by its customers for illegal (sharing music, movies and so on) activities.
We would make two points.
1. Intent. Stealing is illegal only if you "intend" to steal? Jaywalking becomes illegal only if you "intended" to cross the street in the middle of the block? We were raised that ignorance of the law is no excuse- - but apparently intent is a good excuse.
2. File sharing will rage on.
In the June 20 edition of the NY Times (available now only for a fee so we're not linking to it), Tom Zeller, Jr. interviews several online experts about their predictions for the Supreme Court decision, and then concludes,
"None of this, of course, will matter to avid downloaders in the end. Peer-to-peer file sharing will rage on, via endless permutations of open source, anonymous, non-profit-seeking software - - even in a Groksterless world."
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court decision and the issue of intellectual property?
Make a comment and tell us now!
Comments