University of Wisconsin students rarely find time to inform themselves about the latest happenings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have occasioned concern among the politically active students on campus, many of whom have vociferously let their opinions be heard in regards to President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts. College students everywhere, however, will be spurred into taking notice of the high court's recent decision in MGM v. Grokster. The very character of music downloading, which has become omnipresent in an era of high-speed and wireless Internet access, seems poised to take an entirely new direction.
The widespread availability of both high-speed Internet and numerous downloading vehicles has made music piracy one of the primary concerns of the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) over the past decade. Previous RIAA lawsuits have focused on individual users, generally by obtaining user addresses through service providers by court order and then filing suits against users at their discretion.
The RIAA has taken a new and unprecedented stance in regards to music piracy, choosing to bring suit against the downloading services themselves rather than individual users. Napster, perhaps the most well known file-sharing service, was the first such service sued. Their very public defeat and recent change in policy (charging users on a monthly basis) has sent shockwaves through the music community.
Both the district and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Grokster could not be found liable for copyright infringement because of the design of their service, which did not provide a searchable index on a centralized server. This distinction provided the courts with the basis for this decision.
MGM's case against Grokster rests on an important point of evidence recognized only by the Supreme Court: the widespread availability of pirated music and video on Grokster's server, regardless of the character of their service. Grokster's implicit collusion in the distribution of copyrighted material was inferred despite the inherent differences between their service and Napster or Kazaa, for example.
By holding Grokster liable for infringement, the Supreme Court has drawn the proverbial line in the sand in regards to file sharing and music piracy. The RIAA is in the process of formulating more suits against free file-sharing services, regardless of the nature of their programs.
The implications of the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster decision are two-fold and bear significant importance in the affairs of student downloaders. First, students concerned with the possibility of individual lawsuits and fines have less to fear than previously indicated. Future suits seem likely to resemble those against the downloading services themselves, many of whom may choose to settle out of court with the RIAA rather than pay steep fines and legal costs.
Students can, however, expect the proliferation of free peer-to-peer file sharing services, which seemed to be growing almost exponentially just a few years ago, to slow dramatically. The growing availability of services such as iTunes and Napster, which provide music on either a song-by-song or monthly basis, seems to be representative of the direction in which MP3 downloading is heading.
The problems faced by the music industry, however, do not seem to be abating. Widespread piracy abroad has resulted in a new focus in RIAA policy. The difficulties presented by bringing suit in international courts as in locales as far-off as the former USSR and China have made U.S.-based services less of a priority for anti-piracy groups following the Grokster decision.
The era of free music downloading appears to be reaching its end. High-speed Internet and the proliferation of downloading services, a seemingly innocuous combination at first glance have resulted in a crippling blow to peer-to-peer services like Grokster from the RIAA. While students appear to have less to fear from a vigilant music industry, the Supreme Court has almost assured students of paying for music on a regular basis once again.