My lawyer just sent me this... I have a lot going on with filesharing and stuff with dropload.com and other sites I run so this stuff I keep a close eye on.... Grokster to Close Service In Settlement Over Piracy [FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif]Associated Press November 7, 2005 3:19 p.m.[/FONT] [/FONT] Grokster Ltd., a developer of controversial Internet file-sharing software, agreed Monday to shut down its controversial file-sharing service to settle a landmark piracy case filed by Hollywood and the music industry, the Associated Press has learned. The surprise settlement permanently bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software, according to people familiar with the agreement. They spoke on condition of anonymity because settlement details were to be disclosed to a federal judge later in the day in Los Angeles. SHUTTING DOWN The main page on Grokster.com was changed Monday to read: "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners. There are legal services for downloading music and movies. This service is not one of them. Grokster hopes to have a safe and legal service available soon." TIMELINE July 2001 -- Napster shutters file-sharing service after protracted legal battle with record companies October 2001 -- Record companies and movie studios sue other file-sharing services, including Grokster April 2003 -- District court rules Grokster is not responsible for copyright violations August 2004 -- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds ruling June 2005 -- Supreme Court sides with entertainment industry November 2005 -- Grokster shuts down its file-sharing service FURTHER READING * File Sharing Loses New Legal Spat 10/20/05 * Grokster Seeks Deal 9/19/05 * File-Sharing Firms Asked to Cease 9/15/05 * High Court Rules Against Grokster 6/28/05 LEGAL DOCUMENTS Read the Supreme Court's ruling and other filings in the case, by arrangement with FindLaw (www.findlaw.com) Grokster's Web site was changed to display a message that its file-sharing service was illegal and no longer available. "There are legal services for downloading music and movies," the message said. "This service is not one of them." "This is a chapter that ends on a high note for the recording industry, the tech community and music fans and consumers everywhere," said Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America. Grokster's brand will survive. A new fee-based version of its software, which will permit only legal downloads, will be available within 60 days from a new parent organization, according to one executive involved in the deal. This executive spoke only on condition of anonymity because the sale of Grokster's assets is pending. The Supreme Court ruled in June the entertainment industry can file piracy lawsuits against technology companies caught encouraging customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. The decision, which gave a green light for the federal case in Los Angeles, significantly weakened lawsuit protections for companies that had blamed illegal behavior on their own customers rather than the technology that made it possible. "We hope the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling and an aggressive education effort will dissuade companies and individuals from engaging in these types of unlawful activities in the future," said Dan Glickman, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America. "But when necessary, we will pursue all avenues -- including legal means -- to protect our product from theft." The court said Grokster and another firm, Streamcast Networks Inc., can be sued because they deliberately encouraged customers to download copyrighted files illegally so they could build a larger audience and sell more advertising. Writing for the court, Justice David H. Souter said the companies' "unlawful objective is unmistakable." "They're out of business," said Charles Baker, a lawyer for Streamcast. "It's over for them. There was a lack of desire to continue to fight this thing going forward." Mr. Baker said the settlement does not affect Streamcast, the co-defendant in the entertainment industry's lawsuit. The Supreme Court noted as evidence of bad conduct that Grokster and Streamcast made no effort to block illegal downloads, which the companies maintained wasn't possible. [/FONT]
Wow. I never really expected that to be the outcome of this. I really have some big issues with the way the RIAA and MPAA handle this entire situation. I would prefer the work on providing products in the way and manner people actually want them. Anyways, after the Supreme Court ruling a while back, I knew things were dicey, but to have this end in a settlement so one-sided just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The RIAA must have had pictures of someone doing something.
Just as Napster was shut down and reopened legally...so will grokster. But apparently the RIAA wants the service halted until they can provide legal services. I don't think that is unfair.
So shoe money, does this change anything with your website or are you just going to keep rolling with it? Is it ok to run a website like this because you have a disclaimer saying not to drop copyrighted material? Im interested in how this all works
I am meeting with attourneys today again. I really cant say too much directly about my site but in general if people are using your site to get around copyright no matter what disclaimers you have you can be liable. Grokster was the first case where this was made the main focal point. Since grokster primarily advertised themselves as a way around copyrights and that they were the "new napster" the supreme court ruled they can be held accountable.