Regardless of which way the Supreme Court chooses to go in the infamous entertainment vs. innovation case as MGM take on Grokster, lawyers assert that Internet theft will remain a riddle for the creators of new technology.
It has by no means been an open and shut case for the apex court. Faced with rational arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court Justices find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. Intelluctal Property must be protected in this age of cutthroat competition, but penalizing someone who just sold a means of infringing copyrights does appear a bit harsh.
Theodore Olsen, the former U.S. solicitor thinks otherwise, ''This sort of thing is out there now and you can't go - and I may be wrong about this - but I don't think you can go into people's homes and pull (software) out, or that anybody's likely to do that. But it would be an important statement; an important point here is to stop the worst of the activity, stop the people who are making money,“ he says.
Among the nine justices who heard arguments from both sides, Justice Antonin Scalia knows that a ruling for the entertainment industry will virtually shut the door on the face of any new inventor. Justice David H. Souter feels compelled to point out that even iPod owners who buy music would steal it if they believe they can get away with it. ‘I know perfectly well if I can get music on my iPod without paying that's what I'm going to do,'' he said.
It is clear that the judiciary itself is divided over this issue. It seems logical that software makers should not be held liable if others are using their software illegally. However, if it was a deliberate ploy, then it is another matter altogether. And that is what the Supreme Court has to decide whether Grokster and StreamCast deliberately set out to commit fraud or not?
