Business organization and agency law

A case was argued in the Supreme Court yesterday that will have a
major impact on both business and our lives forever. An indication of
the importance of this case can be gleaned by the number of Amicus
briefs that were filed. An Amicus brief is filed by someone that is
not part of the litigation but still feels they have a interest in it.
It is my understanding that over 50 Amicus briefs were filed on one side
only. I am sure a similar number was filed on behalf of the other side.
Everyone from the United States government to the American library
association has lined up on one side or the other. What is this case
about? Something called P2P. We have learned that if we create an
original work whether it is a paper, book, song or movie, we have a
copyright. P2P is peer to peer-file sharing. The technology is important
to this case. Here is how it works.

 

I down load software and become connected to a peer to peer network. I
make whatever files I like that are on my computer available for
sharing. Millions of other users do the same thing. If I would like a
file, I can search for it on the network and download it to my computer.
Others can do the same thing and take a file from my computer or
millions of others. These files can be anything. I could share a file
that has my thoughts on the state of the world today. I could share a
file that has a computer program that I wrote which I think others would
like; so called freeware. However, the reality is that most of the files
are copyrighted songs and as the speed of the internet increases movies.


 

Intellectual property is a huge business. Movies, songs, software etc.
is estimated to be roughly 6% of our GNP. Hollywood and the record
industry has filed suit to shut down these companies that offer P2P file
sharing. Here is the argument on both sides.

 

Hollywood:

 

These companies serve no legitimate purpose. Although in theory CJ could
share his document on his thoughts about the state of the world, no one
cares what he thinks. These networks are simply being used to facilitate
copyright violations, i.e. stealing intellectual property. CJ and
millions of others are stealing music and ruining our business. The
companies are contributing to copyright violations and as contributory
infringers should either be shut down or made to pay damages.

 

P2P Companies

 

We aren't doing anything wrong. We have no files on our computers. All
we are doing is connecting millions of users together. What they choose
to share is both outside our control and none of our business. We are no
different than someone that makes tape recorders, copying machines, VCRs
or blank CDs. plus you may have bought that Fleetwood Mac album years
ago and now has no record player. You paid for the right to listen to
that music. Why can't you get it from someone else that has it in a
useable form? If users are violating copyright sue them; don't sue them.

 

History:

 

This same type case was argued 20 years ago. It is called the Betamax
case and I have put the Supreme Courts decision in the course materials
newsgroup. Note that the circuit court of appeals was willing to prevent
VCRs from being sold. The Supreme Court reversed. How would our world be
different today? Would CDs and DVDs have been developed? Also, the
Supreme Court saved Hollywood from them selves. Rather than killing the
movie business, video rentals are now a major source of income.

 

Question: 1

 

You are a Supreme Court justice debating this case with your fellow
justices. Are you in favor of banning P2P networks or not? Present your
thoughts and respectfully reply to those that disagree.

 

Question: 2

 

Use the internet and find a group or association that has filed an
Amicus brief in this case. The case is captioned MGM v Grokster. Are you
surprised at the side that they are taking? Has their brief or position
influenced your thoughts?

 

Question: 3

 

It is time for your vote. You must vote to either ban P2Ps or tell the
entertainment industry that they can exist. Be aware that if you vote to
ban P2Ps, you may stifle technology for decades. If you vote to allow
them, you may destroy an industry. No wishy washy, I'd find a way to
make everyone happy. You are a Supreme Court justice and you have to
vote - ban them or not. Support your decision.