USSC rules on file-sharing

[JUGGERNAUT]

Whether they want to admit it or not the growth of broadband & internet services has been spawned by the growth of file-sharing. Music far exceeds movies in titles & movies probably exceed music in terms of bytes.

 

The recent ruling authored by Souter states that if a site by nature of either it's marketing or in failure to take easy steps promotes piracy it can be sued. Up until now the courts have relied on a SONY case in the mid-80's where the court ruled that the legal uses for VCRs far exceeded the illegal ones & felt that only such suits would hamper those legal uses.

 

If these sites should suddenly shut down expect e-commerce to take a major hit. If you don't provide people an incentive to use broadband & surf the net they'll stop doing it. That's just common sense.

 

The court in the 80's just seemed smarter than the one in the 90's & now the new millenium. They looked at the revenue generated by the legal uses of VCR copying & felt the illegal ones were negligible in comparison.

 

Souter obviously didn't do that here. He didn't use common sense. Nor did the people supporting him. He didn't consider the value these sites have to e-commerce in general. He didn't consider the ad market of these sites & how that influences sales. he didn't consider the impact these sites have had on the growth of broadband. He ignored common sense & ruled based on an ideal of his that supports a select few.

 

This case in particular (MGM vs Groeker) will now go back to the lower courts. It remains to be seen how they will rule. This could become a ping-pong. I would home the broadband providers use their media power to drive public debate on the issue.