Grokster |
Grokster Ltd. is a software company specialising in person to person packages. The company is privately owned and has its registered office in Nevis, West Indies. One of the products that it has released is a peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system. The product is similar in look and feel to KaZaA which is marketed by Sharman Networks.
=The technology=
There are two major .[http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/FileSharing.pdf]
=The spyware problem=
Grokster is a Peer-To-Peer File Sharing program. It offers free, peer-to-peer fast and detailed searches, no incomplete/failed downloads, auto resume, fast downloads, file preview, and ability to handle all file types. In an organization, Grokster can severely degrade network performance and consume vast amounts of storage. Installs numerous other products, including Active Delivery, CasinoOnNet, ClipGenie, CommonName, Cydoor, DelFin Media Viewer, DownloadWare, eUniverse, FavoriteMan, FlashTrack, Gator, IGetNet, IGetNet/ClearSearch, IncrediFind, IPInsight, Look2Me, Lycos.SideSearch, NetworkEssentials, NetworkEssentials/SCBar, PeopleOnPage, RVP, SAHAgent, Search-EXE, SearchEnhancement, TOPicks, VX2/e, VX2/f, and Webhancer.
Recent versions of Grokster the download includes additional applications that are bundled within the software s installer file, some of which may be provided by parties other than the developer of this download. These applications may deliver advertisements, collect information, overlay content or graphics on the Web site you are viewing, or modify your system settings. Pay close attention to the options presented to you during the installation process. As of 9/3/02, the version of Grokster available for download requires that you also install Cydoor and GAIN components. During installation, you will also be presented with more than 10 optional installation items and/or services from Symantec, File Freedom, New.net, eBates, GreenCarrot, and others.
[http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspxid=453060425 Additional information from Spyware Information Center] Spyware Information Center and Microsoft are the sources for this information. Source citations Computer Associates Spyware Information Center http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspxid=453060425
Microsoft Corporation http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspxscid=kb;en-us;317013 and http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspxview=en-us&st=b&na=82&qu=grokster
=The history of the case in the U.S. courts=
In April 2003, Los Angeles, California federal court judge, Stephen Wilson, ruled in favour of Grokster and Streamcast (providers of Morpheus P2P software) against the Recording Industry Association of America and the MPAA and held that their file sharing software was not illegal.
On 20 August 2003, the decision was appealed by the RIAA and the MPAA.
On 17 August 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a partial ruling supporting Grokster, holdingThis appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court s partial grant of summary judgment.
In , and in June 2005, the Court unanimously held that Grokster could indeed be sued for infringement for their activities prior to the date of this judgement. But the future impact of the case may only be to require software companies to more carefully advertise their packages to discourage illegal copying.
=A summary of the argument=
The key issue in this Copyright infringement case is the so-called Sony safe-harbor principle which was set by the Supreme Court twenty-one years ago in Sony v. Universal Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984). This states that, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses. (Sony 464 U.S. at 442). Grokster argues that proof of reasonable, actual or potential, non-infringing use, is sufficient to fulfil the substantiality requirement. The RIAA and MPAA argue that Sony safe-harbor requires proof that the non-infringing use is the primary one; an incidental non-infringing use is not enough.
Among the amicus curiae briefs: *The U.S. government proposed that a manufacturer of technological device will be protected by Sony safe-harbor only if the non-infringing uses are commercially significant compared to the infringing uses. *A group of law and economic professors (among them Professors Kenneth J. Arrow, and William M. Landes) argue that the test whether the non-infringing use is substantial, requires an examination of all the existing legal mechanisms for accomplishing the same task. The example given is the distribution of the Bible. This is lawfully available through P2P file sharing software and is therefore a non-infringing use. But many religious websites offer a free copy. Thus, since downloading the Bible through P2P file sharing software is an addition to the list of well-established legitimate methods for obtaining a free Bible, the benefits of this addition are not substantial and the overall use of P2P software should not be considered a non-infringing use. *The cost-benefit analysis, first introduced by Judge Posner from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Aimster case, holds that a manufacturer of technological device will enjoy the Sony safe-harbor only if ...it would have been disproportionately costly for him to eliminate or at least reduce substantially the infringing uses. *The Creative Commons organization presented a strong argument for non-infringing use in the form of the Creative Commons licence, despite the fact that the architecture of the software did not allow for the licence to be transferred.
=See also=
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
=External links=
|
|