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 releases iTunes 11.0.3 with new Mini Player
- Microsoft: Don’t expect iTunes app on Windows 8
- Apple launches ‘A Decade of iTunes’
- Apple adds ‘download later’ option to iTunes
- Court rules iTunes songs can’t be resold
- Apple adds freemium app warning in App Store
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
- AT&T: All video chat apps will work over cellular in 2013
- Apple releases testimony before CEO’s Senate appearance
- New Apple offers in India can reduce iPhone price
- Report: Apple testing 1.5” OLED displays for iWatch
- Song skipping terms slowing iRadio negotiations
- iLounge Weekly arriving Monday, giveaway reminder
- Report: BBM iOS app won’t support iPad at launch
- Report: iRadio might miss WWDC debut
- Fair Labor Assoc.: Foxconn, Apple still exceed work hours
- CW to bring content to Apple TV
Recent Reviews
- Trü Protection Trü-Fit Anti-Glare Film Set
- New Trent iCarrier IMP120D Dual USB Power Pack
- BlueFlame 2M Charge and Sync Cable with Lightning Connector
- HMDX Jam Party Bluetooth Wireless Stereo Speaker
- Logitech Harmony Ultimate Universal Remote Control
- MyCharge Freedom 2000 Battery Case for iPhone 5
- Nike Nike+ FuelBand
- OCDesk OCDock for iPhone 5
- Bluelounge MiniDock (With Lightning Connector)
- Mophie Juice Pack Powerstation Pro
Recent Articles
- Calendar info disappears after iCloud restore
- Remove old iCloud backup after restoring to a new iPhone
- Setting up a ringtone in iTunes
- Using a Wi-Fi hard drive with an iPad
- Backing up and restoring an iPod classic
- Can’t restore iPod touch without passcode
- Retaining older versions of Apps during an iOS Restore
- Can’t eject iPod nano without closing Firefox
- Can’t change iTunes Apple ID to iCloud e-mail address
- Effect of erasing an iPhone on the Find My iPhone feature
1
I’m sure people will keep on downloading…
Posted by ipodman715 on June 27, 2005 at 8:41 AM (PST)
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 8:52 AM (PST)
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 9:29 AM (PST)
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 9:31 AM (PST)
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 10:14 AM (PST)
6
More money for iTunes and Apple…
Posted by KillerChainsawBunny in Alabama on June 27, 2005 at 10:55 AM (PST)
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 12:36 PM (PST)
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 6:45 PM (PST)
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 8:53 PM (PST)