![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoFrom SCOTUSBlog, talking about today's internet-related cases:
*^*^*
If someone asks you what the Supreme Court thinks about the internet today, you've got a couple of responses.
1. In Grokster, the Court seems to understand that the case before it isn't just about P2P, and that the development of technology is really at issue. It doesn't want to let one industry -- the content industry -- use its statutory copyright monopoly to control the growth of another industry. On the other hand, the Court also recognizes that going after individual filesharers is very difficult, and that it may be necessary to go after intermediaries where sufficient evidence of intent is present. (This could be called the "There Must Be Liability In Here Somewhere" argument.) Result: some risk of liability for copyright infringement by technology providers, and a roadmap for what evidence is relevant when those cases come up.
2. In BrandX, the Court takes an entirely different approach. Using homespun analogies to pizza and dogs, and based on some fundamental misunderstandings about technology, the Court defers to the FCC's determinations about internet services. (This could be called the "This is Really Hard And We Want Out" tack.) Result: unfettered discretion lodged in the FCC to do what it wants with all internet services.
*^*^*
The interesting part here is that Grokster was written by Justice Souter, while BrandX was written by Justice Thomas. Souter is usually portrayed as a technophobe. Given the arguments used, I leave it to the reader to decide who's more comfortable with technological issues.
*^*^*
If someone asks you what the Supreme Court thinks about the internet today, you've got a couple of responses.
1. In Grokster, the Court seems to understand that the case before it isn't just about P2P, and that the development of technology is really at issue. It doesn't want to let one industry -- the content industry -- use its statutory copyright monopoly to control the growth of another industry. On the other hand, the Court also recognizes that going after individual filesharers is very difficult, and that it may be necessary to go after intermediaries where sufficient evidence of intent is present. (This could be called the "There Must Be Liability In Here Somewhere" argument.) Result: some risk of liability for copyright infringement by technology providers, and a roadmap for what evidence is relevant when those cases come up.
2. In BrandX, the Court takes an entirely different approach. Using homespun analogies to pizza and dogs, and based on some fundamental misunderstandings about technology, the Court defers to the FCC's determinations about internet services. (This could be called the "This is Really Hard And We Want Out" tack.) Result: unfettered discretion lodged in the FCC to do what it wants with all internet services.
*^*^*
The interesting part here is that Grokster was written by Justice Souter, while BrandX was written by Justice Thomas. Souter is usually portrayed as a technophobe. Given the arguments used, I leave it to the reader to decide who's more comfortable with technological issues.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 10:25 pm (UTC)