P2P, Betamax, and Gun Control: Strange Commonality

On March 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster., on whether the makers of peer-to-peer file sharing software are partially responsible for copyright violations made by the software's users. The argument of the entertainment industry seems to be that P2P companies, in their business models, counted on users engaging in illegal activity; and therefore, the manufacturers should be secondarily liable for damages.

An interesting theory. Too bad it's been tried before, unsuccessfully, by the same entertainment companies. In the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios, Inc. (464 U.S. 417) (often called the "Betamax" decision), the Court held that the manufacturers of VCRs could not be held responsible for copyright infringement because, in part:

The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

A lower-court ruling that such legitimate purposes should be "commercially significant" and "non-infringing" seems to be at the core of the debate currently before the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the entertainment industry has also adopted another method of attack, namely to support legislation that would make it a crime to "induce" someone to commit an act of copyright infringement. The prime bill, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 , appears to have died in committee, but may well be reintroduced later down the line.

The thing that immediately struck me when I read about these cases was their applicability to the gun-control debate. I mean, the sale of firearms to hunters is "commercially significant," and the underlying activity is licit. And yet to my knowledge this has not been a major thread of the discussion. On the other hand, the number of deaths attributable to VCRs is probably minimal.

---

UPDATE: The Supreme Court announced its decision on MGM Studios v. Grokster on June 27th. In a 9-0 verdict, the justices reversed a previous appellate court finding that suggested Grokster was not liable for piracy-related damages.

The Wall Street Journal comments on the case and its relation to the Betamax ruling:

In that 1984 decision, the Court had found that Sony couldn't be held responsible because individuals might use its VCR technology to infringe copyrights. But the current Court sensibly ruled that Grokster was very different. Unlike VCR makers, its business model was almost entirely dependent on illegal behavior, which Grokster tacitly endorsed or at least took no action to prevent.

While I'm sure various forces on the web will be incensed at the Court's decision, the Journal notes a truly bright side: "[I]t will probably be the end to the truly nutty attempts in Congress to solve the piracy problem in ways that really would infringe on the fair and legitimate use of digital technology." We can hope, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.