Oh, oh. While the Supreme Court's decision in the Grokster vs MGM case isn't expected for several months, I just stumbled onto something that looks like bad news for the peer-to-peer side. It would appear that the court in an earlier but somehow little noticed decision upheld arguments identical to those made by the music and movie industries in this case. I must admit it's an odd coincidence that the decision is exactly 100 years old today, which might lead some to question its authenticity. But, hey, you be the judge.
U.S. Supreme Court
April 1, 1905
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from a decree restraining an alleged infringement by the defendant of the copyrights of artists represented by the respondents. That massive infringement has occurred using the systems developed and sold by the defendant is not in dispute. Respondents have estimated, and the defendant has stipulated as fact, that 90 percent of the content used on those devices are direct or thinly disguised copies of copyrighted works. The only question at hand is whether the defendant's actions in selling those systems constitutes infringement on his part.
The respondents acknowledge that the defendant did not himself copy the stories or the music of the artists they represent. Rather they argue that copyright infringement is the only significant use of his products and as such his design and sale of them constitute an active inducement to infringing acts on the part of others. The defendant knew or should have known when he devised these systems that they would be used for illegal purposes and is therefore liable for contributory infringement.
The court recognizes that the devices, as the defense has argued, do theoretically have the capability of substantial noninfringing use. And we are mindful of the concern that making the defendant responsible for how customers use his products might discourage some of the inventive spirit he has shown in the past. However, we cannot ignore the testimony of some of this nation's most renowned composers, playwrights, actors and other artists of the grievous harm caused by wholesale copying of their "inventions" that the defendant's products have induced. Indeed, if the all too public performances of their work enabled by the defendant's devices continue, the very existence of the respondents' centuries-old crafts would be in jeopardy. We therefore cannot help but agree with the respondents' assertion that the defendant's systems are in fact two "gigantic infringement machines built on inducement" of illegal violations of copyright.
Therefore, in the matter of defendant Thomas Alva Edison versus respondent the Book Authors Guild and respondent the Sheet Music Publishers Association, this court unanimously concurs with the lower court's decree. In inventing and offering for sale his "moving picture" and "phonograph" devices, the defendant induced countless infringing acts against the holders of copyrights for books and music. Defendant Edison's assets are to be seized in order to make restitution to the respondents. Furthermore, all phonographs, record players, moving picture equipment and similar devices are to be confiscated and destroyed. All "record" companies and "film studios" most disgorge their ill-gotten gains and henceforth cease and desist all operations now and forevermore.
It is so ordered.
---------------------------------
Read and post comments about this story here.
1:26:59 PM 
|
