Posted November 7, 200520 yr comment_3860291 Grokster Downloading Service Shuts Down By TED BRIDIS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations to settle a landmark piracy case filed by Hollywood and the music industry, The Associated Press has learned. The surprise settlement permanently bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software. Settlement details were to be disclosed to a federal judge later in the day in Los Angeles. Grokster's Web site was changed to display a message that its file-sharing service was illegal and no longer available. "There are legal services for downloading music and movies," the message said. "This service is not one of them." "This is a chapter that ends on a high note for the recording industry, the tech community and music fans and consumers everywhere," said Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America. Grokster's brand will survive. A new fee-based version of its software, which will permit only legal downloads, will be available within 60 days from a new parent organization, according to one executive involved in the deal. This executive spoke only on condition of anonymity because the sale of Grokster's assets is pending. Grokster's decision was not expected to affect Internet users who already run the company's file-sharing software to download music and movies online, nor was it expected to affect users of rival downloading services, such as eDonkey, Kazaa, BitTorrent and others. The Supreme Court ruled in June the entertainment industry can file piracy lawsuits against technology companies caught encouraging customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. The decision, which gave a green light for the federal case to advance in Los Angeles, significantly weakened lawsuit protections for companies that had blamed illegal behavior on their own customers rather than the technology that made it possible. "We hope the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling and an aggressive education effort will dissuade companies and individuals from engaging in these types of unlawful activities in the future," said the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, former Rep. Dan Glickman. "But when necessary, we will pursue all avenues - including legal means - to protect our product from theft." The court said Grokster and another firm, Streamcast Networks Inc., can be sued because they deliberately encouraged customers to download copyrighted files illegally so they could build a larger audience and sell more advertising. Writing for the court, Justice David H. Souter said the companies' "unlawful objective is unmistakable." "They're out of business," said Charles Baker, a lawyer for Streamcast. "It's over for them. There was a lack of desire to continue to fight this thing going forward." Baker said the settlement does not affect Streamcast, the co-defendant in the entertainment industry's lawsuit. The Supreme Court noted as evidence of bad conduct that Grokster and Streamcast made no effort to block illegal downloads, which the companies maintained wasn't possible. Another victory for the **AA's as another company gets bullied out of existance. There's certainly a valid debate over file sharing, but the way they're going about basically dragging lawsuits out until the company throws in the towel hardly answers the question.
November 7, 200520 yr comment_3860436 This is a poor way to go about things. A new one will just pop up after this and they'll start the process over again. It's a waste of money that could be going into R/D and signing more talent.
November 7, 200520 yr comment_3860492 There's certainly a valid debate over file sharing, but the way they're going about basically dragging lawsuits out until the company throws in the towel hardly answers the question. You hit it right on the head. There's no active debate about the issue - the RIAA is just asserting its opinion through excessive financial strength that most of these lower companies can't dream of competing with. Just a sad state of affairs.
November 7, 200520 yr Author comment_3860519 Especially since all they have to do is get one court ruling in their favor to establish a precedent, you'd think the **AA's would want one of these cases to reach a judge.
November 7, 200520 yr comment_3861346 Did anyone still use Grokster? It seems like Soulseek and Limewire are the pretty popular P2P programs nowadays. Well, outside of Bit Torrents anyway.
November 7, 200520 yr comment_3861356 They don't want it to reach a judge because they know for a fact that it would have to be a clear victory for them to win their case. Anything less than that leads to them losing, and considering they'd have to back up their case with actual documentation that continually is against them in proving that piracy causes the losses they receive. Well, you get the picture. It needs to be 100% fool proof, and frankly its not. Hence why no company is willing to put it up to the courts.
Create an account or sign in to comment