News
Supreme Court rules against file-sharing services
In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing services could be held responsible if their software was intended primarily to swap music and movies illegally.
“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement,” Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
Earlier today, financial research firm Piper Jaffray said that Apple’s iTunes Music Store “would be the primary beneficiaryâ€? of a decision against P2P file sharing.
Related Stories
- Apple tweaks App Store with Editors’ Choice, Free picks
- Apple censors ‘jailbreak’ on iTunes Store
- Report: Siri APIs, Siri for iPad coming in iOS 6?
- Apple hit with class action suit over iTunes billing
- iTunes Match rolls out to several new countries
- Apple offers eBook settlement in Europe
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- Pulp adds iCloud sync, new Home Page
- WordPress for iOS adds Push Notifications
- Sony launches Music Unlimited for iOS
- Apple device poll ends, computing poll begins
- Fruit Ninja adds new features and power-ups
- Apple to sell Nest Learning Thermostat
- Third-gen iPad to launch in Guam, Philippines May 29
- Apple tweaks App Store with Editors’ Choice, Free picks
- Panic releases Diet Coda
- Booq rolls out new Folio for iPad
Recent Reviews
- Pelican i1075 Hardback Case for iPad
- Skinit Skins for iPad (3rd-Generation)
- Spigen SGP Steinheil Ultra Optics Screen Protector for iPad (3rd-Gen)
- ZeroChroma VarioProtect for iPhone 4/4S
- BodyGuardz UltraTough Clear Skins for iPad (3rd-Gen)
- Wrapsol Original + Ultra Hybrid Protective Film for iPad 2/iPad (3rd-Gen)
- iBattz Mojo Removable Power Card Wallet
- dreamGEAR i.Sound Power View Pro S 2.1A Dual Charging Dock
- dreamGEAR i.Sound Universal Power View
- Sena Cases Florence Portfolio for iPad (3rd-Gen)
Recent Articles
- Removing music from iTunes after copying to iPod
- iOS Gems: Farm 123, Facebook Camera, Scribblenauts, Shoot the Zombirds + Virtua Tennis Challenge
- iTunes TV show size totals don’t match actual disk storage
- Consolidating Multiple iTunes Libraries
- Converting Purchased Videos to 1080p HD
- Find My Friends always reports home location
- Creating an iTunes Match library from an external hard drive
- Benefits of keeping apps in iTunes when using iCloud
- Recovering iTunes from an External Hard Drive
- Normalizing volume levels for Voice Memos
1
I’m sure people will keep on downloading…
Posted by ipodman715 on June 27, 2005 at 9:41 AM (PDT)
2
Wrong. Article currently reads: “In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing services could be held responsible if its software or network is used primarily to swap music and movies illegally.”
It should read something similar to this: “In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing services could be held responsible if its promotion primarily highlights illegal uses.”
Read the ruling.
Posted by Jesper on June 27, 2005 at 9:52 AM (PDT)
3
Um, Jesper—I assume you’re referring to the above iPodLounge article. If you are, it actually does say “...if their software was intended primarily to swap music and movies illegally.”
Posted by PushButtonAction in Atlanta, GA on June 27, 2005 at 10:29 AM (PDT)
4
What a scary decision.
Let’s not forget that email is a peer-to-peer service.
What copyright holder is going to be the first to sue yahoo, google or m hotmail for its ability to share files? Sounds ridiculous, but that’s where this is all headed.
Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on June 27, 2005 at 10:31 AM (PDT)
5
I don’t think it’s as slipperly slope as some people are thinking. The key to all of this is the intention of the program, was it created for the purpose of an illegal activity? The SC doesn’t even go this far, all the SC is saying is that it’s ok to file a lawsuit against against these P2P services as a secondary defendent. The resulting lawsuit still needs to show the P2P service acted irresponsibly.
It opens a floodgate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone will get swept away.
Posted by Crazy Mike on June 27, 2005 at 11:14 AM (PDT)
6
More money for iTunes and Apple…
Posted by KillerChainsawBunny in Alabama on June 27, 2005 at 11:55 AM (PDT)
7
PushButtonAction: Yes, it does now. They changed it, for which I’m grateful. (Here’s a screenshot the article in my RSS reader which displays changes in the description: http://wootest.net/ipodloungechanged.png )
Posted by Jesper on June 27, 2005 at 1:36 PM (PDT)
8
Here’s the link to the decision on the Supreme Court website…not that anyone here is going to actually read it before commenting…
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf
Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on June 27, 2005 at 7:45 PM (PDT)
9
Pretty soon the human race will start to look like frumpy Bill Gates with no gender, and the Supreme Court will be a figment of our imagination hardwired with protection keys. (Isn’t that what Bill is starting to look like anyway?)
Posted by FahrenheiPod 451 on June 27, 2005 at 9:53 PM (PDT)