Newspapers, here’s one example and bloggers that can pull their attention from the Schiavo case are full of discussion of MGM v Grokster, No. 04-480, to be argued in the Supreme Court on March 29. Put simply, if it is possible to do so, the Court will be asked to affirm the 9th Circuit opinion that developers of technology used to infringe copyrights are not liable for contributory and vicarious infringement where the technology has legal, non-infringing uses and the developers have not handled the protected material infringed.
OK! It isn’t possible to put it simply which is, presumably, why the Supreme Court has been deluged with briefs. Jonathan Band of Morrison & Foerster has prepared a summary of the multitude of briefs filed in Grokster. (You’ll want to rotate the pages counterclockwise to get a format that is easier to read. ) (Thanks to Scotusblog for the link.) None of these may put it simply, but do provide the factual details, very sophisticated legal arguments, and scary predictions (on both sides) of what will happen should the Court rule one way or the other.
Which brings us to today’s announcement by Mark Cuban, well known high tech entreprenuer, but undoubtedly better known as the combative (and maverick) owner of the Dallas franchise of the National Basketball Association. I’ve been reading his blog more for his views on the NBA — owners who get fined by the Commissioner a lot are always interesting — than his views on technology and intellectual property. After reading today’s post, it is obvious I’ve misjudged him,
After noting that although he has produced and invested in his share of technology, he is primarily a content provider, these days, Cuban notes:
“If Grokster loses, technological innovation might not die, but it will have such a significant price tag associated with it, it will be the domain of the big corporations only.
It wont be a good day when high school entrepreneurs have to get a fairness opinion from a technology oriented law firm to confirm that big music or movie studios wont sue you because they can come up with an angle that makes a judge believe the technology might impact the music business. It will be a sad day when American corporations start to hold their US digital innovations and inventions overseas to protect them from the RIAA, moving important jobs overseas with them.
Thats what is ahead of us if Grokster loses. Thats what happens if the RIAA is able to convince the Supreme Court of the USA that rather than the truth, which is , Software doesnt steal content, people steal content, they convince them that if it can impact the music business, it should be outlawed because somehow it will. It doesnt matter that the RIAA has been wrong about innovations and the perceived threat to their industry, EVERY SINGLE TIME. It just matters that they can spend more then everyone else on lawyers. Thats not the way it should be.
A little doctrinaire, of course, but the VCR didn’t destroy the motion picture or music industry — even after the Supreme Court’s decision in SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ( the BetaMax case) — and radio and television didn’t destroy either industry. New technology has consistently provided content owners new ways to sell their content and to expand their markets. Any musician or composer who can sell 90 days use of a ringtone for $2.50 is going to do well.
But Cuban continues:
So , the real reason of this blog. To let everyone know that the EFF and others came to me and asked if I would finance the legal effort against MGM. I said yes. I would provide them the money they need. So now the truth has been told. This isnt the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me. Mark Cuban and my little content company. Its about our ability to use future innovations to compete vs their ability to use the courts to shut down our ability to compete. its that simple.
Cuban’s donation to EFF isn’t exactly new news — had I been paying attention I would have been aware that Jason reported $100,000 worth last October — but it is interesting to see a self-proclaimed content guy passing the message that restricting the development of new technology, something that a reversal of Grokster is bound to do, isn’t going to be good for the content people. And to see him willing to put his money where his message is.
Thank you, Sir.
Leave a Reply