Writes Wayne Arnold for the New York Times, ‘The Australian ruling was broadly consistent with a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in June that the makers of the file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus could be held liable for contributing to the infringement of copyrights. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that file-sharing services should be protected if they have some legitimate uses and sent the case back for trial to look at whether they encouraged users to steal copyrighted material.’
‘The practical effect of both rulings is to increase pressure on the makers of file-sharing software, who at best face escalating legal fees to stay in business and at worst may face debilitating judgments for damages.’
‘The Recording Industry Association of America praised the Australian ruling. “This decision reflects a growing, international chorus: those who promote theft can be held accountable no matter how they may attempt to escape responsibility,” the association wrote in a statement. “A corrupt business strategy of attempting to hide offshore is not off limits to the enforcement of rights by creators or law enforcement.”’
‘Kazaa’s lawyers argued that the company’s software was no different in function from a photocopier and that Kazaa bore no responsibility for how its software was used by those who downloaded it.’
