Streamcast held liable for inducing copyright infringement
Here's the Streamcast decision, in which the California district court, on remand from the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling, has found Streamcast liable for inducing copyright infringement. Streamcast was the remaining defendant in the Grokster case, as Grokster settled last November and Sharman Networks is said to have settled in August. The $50 million settlement that Grokster made is "to be reduced by any judgment against the Grokster Parties," namely pursuant to this ruling.
And here's some of the initial commentary on the 60 page ruling:
The RIAA press release calls the ruling a "significant victory".
The EFF's analysis here notes that:
"In finding StreamCast liable for inducement, the court said:
Thus, Plaintiffs need not prove that StreamCast undertook specific actions, beyond product distribution, that caused specific acts of infringement. Instead, Plaintiffs need prove only that StreamCast distributed the product with the intent to encourage infringement.This is a remarkably broad statement, and is at odds with the Supreme Court's view that an intent to encourage infringement must be accompanied by 'clear expression or other affirmative steps' beyond the mere distribution of a product."
On the Patry Copyright Blog, William Patry discusses the case and comments here that:
"I have had many discussions with friends about whether Grokster did create a new third theory of liability, separate from the inducement prong of classic copyright contributory infringement. I have taken the position it did and further that it did so deliberately to kill off Sony."
This comment has led to a lively exchange of comments on Professor Patry's blog, including postings signed anonymously by "The Sony safe harbor", asserting "The sky has not fallen, nor have I."
