A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Internet file-trading networks can be held liable when their users copy music, movies and other protected works without permission.
The justices set aside a U.S. appeals court ruling that the peer-to-peer networks cannot be held liable for copyright infringement because they can be used for legitimate purposes as well.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David Souter wrote for the court.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
formatting link
. Hundreds of new articles daily.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now wait a minute ... FTP is also a 'file trading scheme' is it not? Admittedly a bit longer to transfer files, and perhaps sort of klutzy compared to the newer schemes, but it is used to transfer files from one place to another, is it not? And the Supreme Court ruled today that 'legitimate purposes' will not be a good enough reason any longer. So point one, if I am willing to spend hours or days downloading an illegal copy of a video from somewhere via my FTP account, that means Cable One (or heck, even mit.edu for example) can get sued for 'facilitating' the device (FTP) which made the transfer possible? Or will FTP somehow be treated 'differently'? Point two, what about VCRs, tape recorders, and the like: all have legitimate purposes, but the Supremes said today that isn't good enough ... will they be treated 'differently' also? Point three, what about when the
_real villians_ in the eyes of the Music and Film Industry
_totally repudiate_ the transfer of 'illegal' files and insist (on their web sites and elsewhere) that the only intended purpose of their software (or devices) is to swap public domain files and that they (the villians) totally repudiate the transfer of illegal stuff. Might that be enough to prevent lawsuits; that in combination with them inquiring 'why are we getting sued but MIT and Harvard are
_not_ getting sued (with their FTP stuff)?' PAT]