Home

Supreme Court

Canada's Supreme Court Upholds Ban on "iPod Tax"

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on July 29, 2005 - 7:07am.
Toronto -- The Canadian Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal of a ruling that set aside a tax on iPods and other digital music players, which would have set aside funds to offset any potential losses to copyright infringement posed by the devices. Canada also charges a tax on blank CDs, which provides rights holders with about 2.8 cents per "lost sale" due to potential music CD copying. The ruling was praised by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), which believes it clarifies that unauthorized file-sharing is an illegal activity in Canada. An earlier decision, which many viewed as legitimizing unfettered file-sharing in Canada, referred to the iPod tax as just compensation for any losses from file-sharing. "For years, those supporting unauthorized file sharing have misleadingly used the existence of the Private Copying Levy to justify illegitimate file sharing," said CRIA president Graham Henderson. "Today, the Supreme Court says 'no such luck.'"
tags: Law | Canada | iPod Tax | Supreme Court | Upholds Ban |

Supreme Court: Cable Broadband Can Stay Closed to Rival ISPs

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on June 27, 2005 - 8:03am.
Washington -- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday in favor of the nation's cable TV providers, effectively shutting out rival Internet service providers that wanted access to their broadband networks to offer competing services. The court overturned a federal court ruling that would have opened the cable companies' broadband pipes to Brand X, and other providers like EarthLink -- instead siding with existing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules. The Supreme Court's ruling classifies cable broadband as an "information service," as opposed to a "telecommunications service"; under the latter classification, phone companies like SBC are required to share their high-speed DSL lines with competing providers. While cable companies, which invested heavily to upgrade their networks to provide broadband, hailed the ruling, supporters of the ISPs and consumer interest groups said it will decrease competition and potentially result in higher broadband prices for consumers.
tags: Law | Broadband | Cable | Supreme Court | Rival ISPs |

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Landmark File-Sharing Copyright Case

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on March 29, 2005 - 8:10am.
Washington -- Oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in MGM v. Grokster, the landmark copyright infringement case pitting the entertainment industry against makers of peer-to-peer file-sharing software. CNET News.com reported that while the justices "were critical of the entertainment industry's proposal, which would hold companies 'predominantly' supported by piracy liable for copyright infringement," they also "showed little sympathy for the file-swapping companies' business model." The Associated Press reported that justices "wondered aloud whether such lawsuits might have discouraged past inventions like copy machines, videocassette recorders and iPod portable music players," while also asking "whether profits from trafficking in stolen property can rightfully be used to help finance a young technology business." The Los Angeles Times reported that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor "suggested a software firm could be sued and put out of business if it drew customers by touting its system as a way to obtain free copies of copyrighted music," a compromise short of allowing lawsuits against any peer-to-peer software company. Outside the court, a group of Nashville musicians protested on behalf of the entertainment industry, while file-sharing advocates carried signs with messages such as "Save Betamax."
tags: Law | Landmark | Supreme Court | File-Sharing Copyright Case |

Supreme Court to Hear File-Sharing Appeal on Tuesday

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on March 28, 2005 - 8:29am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in MGM Studios v. Grokster, the landmark file-sharing case that will likely determine once and for all whether developers of file-sharing software like Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by file-swappers. The major record labels and movie studios filed the appeal after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2004 that the companies that produce such software are not liable, citing in its decision the 1984 Supreme Court "Betamax" precedent that legalized sales of the VCR in light of their "substantial non-infringing uses." Those backing the entertainment companies include the U.S. Solicitor General's office and the Christian Coalition, while the American Civil Liberties Union and Consumer Electronics Association have sided with the file-sharing firms; groups of artists have voiced opinions on both sides of the issue. Dot-com billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has also announced that he will finance Grokster's defense of the lawsuit, after being approached by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others. "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," Cuban wrote in his blog on Sunday. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the case in June.
tags: Law | File-Sharing | Supreme Court |

Supreme Court to Decide Legality of Peer-to-Peer Networks

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on December 10, 2004 - 3:20am.
Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will hear a case deciding whether file sharing services like Grokster and StreamCast Networks can be held liable for the copyright infringement of their users, Dow Jones Newswires reported. The recording industry said that it is losing up to $1 billion a year in sales to illegal downloaders. "The infringement Grokster and StreamCast foster is inflicting catastrophic, multibillion dollar harm," the entertainment industry said in its high court appeal. Grokster and StreamCast, however, argue that current copyright laws don't cover new computer technologies, such as file-sharing, and urged that Congress be allowed to decide the issue. The case stems back to 2001, when the entertainment industry sued the two services. That case was dismissed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled in favor of the peer-to-peer networks. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in March, with a ruling following by June 2005.
tags: Supreme Court | Legality | Peer-to-Peer Networks |

Supreme Court to Decide if Cable Broadband Should be Opened to Rival ISPs

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on December 3, 2004 - 4:43am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether cable TV systems should be classified in the same manner as phone companies, who are compelled by the government to open their high-speed Internet lines so that third-party Internet service providers may offer their own competing services over the systems, the Associated Press reported. The justices will consider whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should classify cable broadband as a "telecommunications service," and be opened to competition as are phone companies' DSL lines. The case will challenge a year-old decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the cable operators must abide by the same rules as phone companies, which are forced by FCC rules to share their systems. Telephone carriers who offer DSL Internet services have argued that the rule puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the cable industry.
tags: Law | Supreme Court | Rival ISPs | Cable Broadband |

Supreme Court Declines Appeal on RIAA "John Doe" File-Swapper Suits

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on October 12, 2004 - 2:23am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider an appeal of a ruling that said the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and others must file "John Doe" lawsuits in order to compel Internet service providers to reveal the names of suspected file-swappers. Initially, the RIAA invoked a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to subpoena ISPs directly for the names of large batches of alleged copyright infringers, but Verizon argued and a U.S. appeals court agreed that the RIAA must first file formal "John Doe" suits against each suspected file-swapping subscriber. Since the appeals court ruling in December 2003, the RIAA has sued over 3,500 individuals using the "John Doe" process.
tags: Law | RIAA | Supreme Court | Declines Appeal | John Doe File-Swapper Suits |

Supreme Court Rules Against Child Online Protection Act

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on June 29, 2004 - 7:12am.
Washington, D.C. -- By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that legislation aimed at protecting children from Internet pornography violates free speech rights. While shooting down the measure, however, the justices left the door open for the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to make a comeback, ruling that a lower court should decide whether technological advances now make it possible to block "harmful" online material from children while still preserving the rights of adults. Voting with the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that while Internet filters undeniably have flaws, "content-based prohibitions" like COPA "have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people." The decision was seen as a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "The Court has made it safe for artists, sex educators and web publishers to communicate with adults about sexuality without risking jail time," said Ann Beeson, who argued the case for the ACLU last March and earlier in 2001.
tags: Law | Supreme Court | Child Online Protection Act |

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Aimster File-Sharing Case

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on January 13, 2004 - 3:40am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from defunct file-sharing site Aimster (now known as Madster), which is now out of legal options and will remain shut down permanently. The site was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2001 for copyright infringement, and shut down per order of federal court injunction in December 2002. An appeal to the 7th Circuit Court was turned down in June 2003. The company, whose software piggybacked on America Online's instant messaging software, was also forced to change its name to Madster after AOL sued for trademark infringement.
tags: Law | File-Sharing | Supreme Court | Aimster |

Dutch Supreme Court Rules Kazaa File-Sharing Software Is Legal

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on December 19, 2003 - 4:38am.
Amsterdam -- The Netherlands' Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court's ruling that said the Kazaa file-sharing application is legal and may be freely distributed on the Internet. Dutch music copyright agency Buma Sterma brought the legal action against Kazaa founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who called the ruling in their favor, "an historic victory for the evolution of the Internet and for consumers." Although the court's ruling does not address individuals who use the file-sharing network, it does absolve the developers of the software that individuals use. Little surprise, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which has waged an all-out war on file-sharing networks, attacked the ruling, saying that it was one-sided and flawed. It also vowed to continue its legal battle in other countries.
tags: Law | Software | File-Sharing | Kazaa | Supreme Court | Dutch |

Aimster CEO Appeals Copyright Ruling to U.S. Supreme Court

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on November 11, 2003 - 7:50am.
Albany, N.Y. -- The CEO of Aimster, a file-sharing service that once piggybacked on AOL's instant messaging software and was shut down via a lawsuit and injunction from the major record labels, has filed an appeal of the lost copyright ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal, which attempts to illustrate some of the file-sharing service's non-infringing uses, was filed by Aimster (now Madster) CEO John Deep on Oct. 28; the Court is expected to decide whether or not to hear the case by Dec. 3. "Right now there is some skepticism about whether or not the Supreme Court will take this case, which I do not share," Deep told U.K. news site TheRegister. "I am asking that it be expedited because of the nature of the injunctions against the service."
tags: Copyright | CEO | U.S | Supreme Court | Aimster |

Supreme Court to Examine Constitutionality of Child Porn Legislation

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on October 15, 2003 - 4:18am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear arguments on whether a law intended to shield children from Internet pornography goes too far in censoring free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) mounted a legal challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998. The Bush administration asked the high court to overturn a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared the law unconstitutional because it relies on "community standards," which are not the same in every place the Internet is accessible. Lawyers for the government have argued that the law targets commercial pornographers who place explicit "teasers" for their services on sites that are available for anyone, including minors, to view. The Supreme Court is likely to deliver its verdict by next July.
tags: Legislation | Child Porn | Supreme Court | Constitutionality |

Supreme Court Rules 7-2 to Increase Copyright Term Length by 20 Years

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on January 15, 2003 - 6:40am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft to uphold a 1998 law that extended the length of a copyright's term by 20 years, postponing the migration of such works into the public domain as Disney's Mickey Mouse and literary works by F. Scott Fitzgerald and Robert Frost. The 7-2 ruling upholds the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which was heavily lobbied for by entertainment firms wanting to keep control over their lucrative copyrights. In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the Congress was acting within its authority when it created the extension, which also does not violate First Amendment free speech rights. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion that, in upholding the extension, the Court "fail[ed] to protect the public interest in free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius." The entertainment industry lauded the Court's ruling. "We are pleased that the Court has reaffirmed the absolute authority of Congress to set copyright terms," said MPAA president and CEO Jack Valenti, in a statement. http://www.copyright.gov/pr/eldred.html http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=2051241 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-980792.html?tag=fd_top
tags: Law | Copyright | U.S | Supreme Court |

Delaware Supreme Court Invalidates Additions to Liquid Audio Board

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on January 9, 2003 - 7:07am.
Redwood City, Calif. -- Liquid Audio, the beleaguered digital music distribution technology provider, announced that the Delaware Supreme Court has invalidated the August 2002 appointment of two directors to its board, including current chairman James Somes. The enlarged board voted last month voted to dissolve the company, in the aftermath of a failed merger with Alliance Entertainment, which was opposed by shareholders. Liquid Audio co-founder and CEO Gerry Kearby resigned in November. "With this important issue resolved, we will work with the remaining directors of Liquid Audio to pursue the best interests of the Company and all its stockholders," said James Mitarotonda, president and CEO of MM Companies and board member of Liquid Audio.
tags: Supreme Court | Delaware | Liquid | Audio Board |

Supreme Court Withdraws from California DVD-Cracking Code Case

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on January 6, 2003 - 7:37am.
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court has withdrawn its temporary interest in a case where a Texas man was accused of trade secret violations in California for distributing computer code that can be used to crack the security on DVDs. Last week, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor placed an emergency hold on a ruling issued by the California Supreme Court, which said that Texas native Matthew Pavlovich could not be sued in California for damaging entertainment and technology firms located there, by publishing the DeCSS code on the Internet. On Friday, O'Connor rescinded the hold, in effect granting Pavlovich the right to distribute the code but not protecting him from future litigation. "The entertainment companies should stop pretending that DeCSS is a secret," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties firm that is representing Pavlovich. "The Supreme Court wisely recognized that there is no need for an emergency stay to prevent Mr. Pavlovich from publishing DeCSS."
tags: Law | Supreme Court | Withdraws | DVD-Cracking |