MGM v Grokster

The US Supreme Court finally released their verdict in the MGM v. Grokster case this afternoon, and the blogs are currently a-twitter with fevered speculation analysis of what it will all mean. My first thought was something along the lines of “oh well, best buy another iPod before the music business gets around to suing Apple out of existence”, but then I downloaded the verdict and a cursory read made me change my mind.

The summary opinion of the court states:

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 to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

IANAL, but that’s not the same as saying “one who distributes a device capable of infringing copyright is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties”. It’s stating what appears to be the bleeding obvious, to me at least - if you create a device that is capable of both legal and illegal uses and promote it as primarily for illegal uses, someone is going to get unhappy about that and take legal potshots at you.

So far from being the absolute and final last word (which was what I always understood the Supreme Court to be for, but IANAL) all I can see this doing is creating yet more work for lawyers, and yet more work for the RIAA and MPAA spin doctors who will be no doubt presenting this as a tremendous victory. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t make their business models any less broken.

Perhaps the last word should go to Hilary Rosen, former record industry shill and lately someone who appears to be reaping that which she sowed:

…knowing we were right legally really still isn’t the same thing as being right in the real world.