http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-grokster28jun28,0,4006105.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
EDITORIAL
Semi-Hooray for Hollywood ...
June 28, 2005
The specter of the Sony Betamax, a failed technology that never
amounted to much but still managed to haunt Hollywood for years, was
almost lifted Monday. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled
that technology companies can be held liable when their users steal
intellectual property like copyrighted movies or music.
So Hollywood need not fear that peer-to-peer file sharing will continue
to threaten its profits. But we say "almost" because, like Jason in
"Friday the 13th," the Betamax — or rather, the precedent it set — is
not dead but dormant. And the sequel is being made in Silicon Valley,
not Hollywood.
The Sony case, decided in 1984, stands for the principle that the
makers of technology are not necessarily liable for its abuse. In that
case, Sony vs. Universal Studios, Hollywood argued that this newfangled
technology — the Betamax — threatened its business because it made it
easier to illegally tape movies. It wanted the right to sue VCR makers
for copyright infringement. But the court ruled that because VCRs were
"capable of substantial non-infringing uses," their makers could not be
held liable.
Fast-forward (or, if you prefer, scene-skip) to Monday. In MGM vs.
Grokster, Justice David Souter, writing for the court, did not answer
the question everyone thought he would — namely, whether trading music
online is more or less similar to taping a movie on a VCR. Instead, he
asked a completely different question: Do users download more
Shakespeare or more Modest Mouse?
Put another way, the question is not so much whether the technology can
be used legally, but how it is actually used. If it can be proved that
its makers induced people to use it illegally, they can be held liable.
Proving whether someone induced someone else to do something wrong is
never easy. (Though in this case, the court found ample evidence that
Grokster had an "unlawful objective" of encouraging copyright
infringement, or at least looking the other way.) It is entirely
possible that, with this case, the court has just exchanged one
difficult question for another.
It is also possible, however, that the court has found a way forward in
a debate that means so much to California. Instead of suing anybody who
comes up with a technology with the potential for illegal use,
Hollywood will have to prove that the main purpose of that technology
is piracy. And instead of defending innovation at all costs, Silicon
Valley will have to show some responsibility.
It sounds like too much to hope for. Then again, the technology and
entertainment industries have a history of working together almost
despite themselves. The Sony Betamax, after all, never made Silicon
Valley any money, but its progeny have been pretty good to Hollywood.