Inter alios, 17 professors of computer science have made amici submissions to the United States Supreme Court concerning MGM’s forthcoming appeal. The brief likens peer-to-peer network topologies to those underpinning the Internet, and in its technical precision (and, for the large part, apoliticism) brings much needed clarity to a debate frequently clouded by self-interest and moral dogmatism:
First, the United States’ description of the Internet’s design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based. … Thus, any liability rule applied to these technologies in general
applies in general to the Internet also.
Numerous other submissions were made. Several of the different perspectives by reference to which they defend Grokster’s peer-to-peer software are listed below:
- Creative Commons (P2P the only economic form of distribution)
- Intel Corporation (overruling Betamax would hamper innovation)
- Internet Law Professors: Fisher, Zittrain and Palfrey (copyright law inappropriate protection)
- Free Software Foundation and New Yorkers for Fair Use (change better left to Congress)
- Musical artists (P2P beneficial for music distribution)
- Sharman Networks, makers of Kazaa (inconsistent with international law)
Additional briefs are available on the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (‘EFF’). The EFF has volunteered to defend Grokster Ltd in the upcoming appeal made by 28 entertainment companies.
The substance of Grokster’s defence is that because their P2P software is capable of a ‘substantial non-infringing use’ it should — like Sony’s technology in Betamax — be lawful to make and distribute, despite being used by many to infringe copyright. The Court will hear the appeal on 29 March 2005.
