File-Sharing Case in the States

[WaldoMcFroog]

Was the case against the file-sharing programs (saying program authors have legal responsibility for their users actions) fair and reasonable?

[WaldoMcFroog]

This was inspired by a question I answered at http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Music/Question121215.html nand the case discussed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

Should one be able to sue a telephone company for providing the medium through which a terrorist plot was organised, for example? Demon Internet controvertially paid an out of court settlement to a serial litigator who deliberately posted near the knuckle comments on noticeboards then sued when other users defamed him in their responses. Personally, I was disgusted at their capitulation.

I watched the John Cusack film 'Runaway Jury' last week. It centres on a wife who is sueing the manufacturer of the handguns that killed her husband. Since I would say I was broadly in support of gun control, you might expect that I would be in favour of the case. There's a legal point made in the film that by advertising their guns as having 'fingerprintless finishes' (i.e. they didn't collect prints) they were knowingly targetting the criminal fraternity and were therefore liable - which seems reasonable. But - assuming that the company did not advertise in this way - would it really have been reasonable to sue them for the use of their product, given the law enshrines their right to arms. Whether I approve or not, it seems to me that it's hard to argue the gun companies can be held liable.

So, does responsibility for illegal acts lie with the perpetrators or those who provide a medium which has the capacity to be abused?

[acw]

I personally feel that the logic behind the gun case is sound.  Guns are legal in the US (well, I know there are exceptions and licensing, but broadly speaking they're legal) and so making them can't be illegal per se.  But advertising them in a way to encourage crime should not be legal - so I feel partial liability should lie there. 

However, it's a dangerous precedent to set.  Given the way the Common Law works, we know that the courts must be VERY careful in making decisions like this.  I find myself asking questions such as "In a 'death by dangerous driving' case, where the family of the victim sued the driver, could the driver try to pass the buck onto the car manufacturer?".  Could rapists who prey on drunken victims pass the buck to the brewery?  I would sincerely hope that the answer to these questions would be a very firm "NO".  In this case, the gun crime perpetrator shouldn't be allowed to pass the buck to the gun manufacturer. 

It's a very tough call.  Whether or not the trial in the file-sharing case was fair and reasonable is another matter.  The idea here is a little different as the programmers must have known that the main purpose for using their product was to commit acts of piracy. 

I suppose it comes down to attacking the root of the problem.  A person who is hell bent on committing a murder will do so, by whatever means necessary, fingerprint free gun or not - it is the PERSON who is the criminal.  However, the file-sharing programmes have, in a way, created a new way to commit crime. 

I realise my arguements are not totally sound.  I'm tired and finding it hard to be clear with my thoughts.

PS - I expect this to be post no.2 - if it's 3 or below and I've repeated someone else's view, it's a cross post - sorry.  :-)

[rja211077]

I think it comes down to a court's decision as to the intent of the service provider. Though it can be used illegally, probably 99.9xxx% of phone usage is legitimate. Probably 80%+ of file-share program use is illegal (just a guess). If someone writes a file-share program knowing this, their intent is surely questionable?

[OBonio]

I recommend you read this article :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/29/after_grokster/

It's not the end. Something else will replace it. In fact, I use something that I doubt very much will be touched by this ruling. They can't see the wood for the trees these record companies.

[El D]

Wasn't the internet developed as a file sharing program?