USA ülemkohus: Groksteri võib kohtusse kaevata ja kahjutasu nõuda

Vähemalt sellisele järeldusele võib tulla lugedes Ars Technica kokkuvõtete kaasusest:

In a 9-to-0 body slam, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Grokster et al can be held liable for the use of their software and networks:

Held: One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

Samas ei tähenda ülemkohtu otsuse veel P2P lõppu vaid pigem natuke kriitilisemat pilku programmidele, mille ainsaks eesmärgiks näib olevat piraatlus ja sellega programmi loojatele raha tootmine.

Picker MobBlog'is on MGM vs. Grokster kaasuses teemal sõna võtnud päris mitmed , kuid kõige huvitavamad postitused on Lior Strahilevitz'ilt:

Bottom line: At the end of the day, it may be that the result of Grokster is a legal landscape more receptive to peer-to-peer than a world in which Grokster wins in the Court and then Congress steps into the fold with new legislation. By losing the battle, file-swappers perhaps forestalled total defeat in the war.

ja Lawrence Solum'ilt:

This is a restatement of Sony that is actually quite favorable to the Sony rule--because the Court seems to say that the limit of Sony is where the good in question is "good for nothing else" but infringing uses.

Tundub, et BitTorrent'it selle kaasuse alusel kimbutama hakata on keeruline ja teistel piisab mõnest "kohmakast" filtrist ja deklaratsioonist, mis ilmub ekraanile enne programmi kasutamist, et sa ei kasuta programmi autoriõiguste rikkumiseks.

Saab näha, mis Groksterist edasi saab.