File-sharing ruling: Your views

Should software companies be responsible if their technology is used to illegally swap music and movies?

According to a new ruling by the US Supreme Court, firms can now be blamed when their file-sharing networks help people illegally swap copyrighted material.

The case was brought to court by 28 of the world's largest entertainment firms.

What do you think of the ruling? Was the right decision reached? How will it affect the industries concerned? Send us your views.

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

It is their own fault for being in such a state of disarray Ben Melville, San Antonio, USA

As a long-time customer of the music industry, I can safely say that it is their own fault for being in such a state of disarray. They wouldn't be haunted by the bogey-man of file sharing if the powers that be would work to stop the practices of blatant price gouging by some of the big retailers and find better ways to promote artists beyond the sphincterized play lists and formats of radio and "music television" stations.
Ben Melville, San Antonio, USA

This decision will have very little effect on P2P. While at first glance, the ruling appears to deal a body blow, in reality it only deals with a specific case brought by MGM against Grockster who had deliberately induced copyright infringement and knew that its users were using its service for illegal activities. In its ruling, the court has effectively provided a blueprint for other P2P networks to avoid prosecution by changing the way they promote their wares. So while Big Business might have won this battle, they clearly have not yet won the war.
Bob H, Glasgow, UK

This could make us all billionaires! So if someone illegally downloads my mp3 using internet explorer, I could sue Microsoft! This music industry is suddenly very lucrative to me!
John H, UK

I write open source software freely available for anyone to download and use as they will and can still manage to make a living. If my work was placed on a P2P network I would be happy. What's the difference between me and a pop star?
Oliver Stieber, Newbury, England

The days of charging exorbitant prices for albums are over Tash, Nottingham, UK

The record labels need to wake up. The days of charging exorbitant prices for albums are over. They need to move with the digital revolution and make music more cheaply available than they are doing now.
Tash, Nottingham, UK

There are 6 billion people on the planet who would like to share their creative efforts with others. Shall we be generous and say that there are 6 million professional artists out there who have chosen to make a living from copyrighted material? Why should the 6 million be allowed to make it impossible for the 6 billion to share?
Themos Tsikas, Oxford, UK

This case doesn't solve the problem - entertainment firms are trying to charge too much for DVDs and CDs. When they do offer electronic download versions they're taking away my rights - I can't give it away, or sell it to someone else if I don't want it anymore!
Andy Davies, Glos, UK

I think the ruling was correct. Anyone that has used these services and the creators of these services knows that their main use is to share copyrighted material illegally. This is not the same thing as copying a Friends DVD (still illegal), file swapping through these services is done on a grand scale.
Dan Kanouff, Tampa, Florida, USA

Despite their best efforts, the record companies will never be able to defeat online downloading or illegal copying of music. CD and DVD burners are so cheap and available now, the record industry is fighting against the current. There are simply too many vehicles for music transferral. Welcome to the world of basement mixed music. We've been ripped off for decades paying $18 for a CD.
Jim, San Jose, California

Can we now sue the government for crimes committed on public streets and highways for which it is responsible?
Harold Burgess, Berlin, Germany

This is nothing more than industrial dictatorship! Andy, Leeds, UK

I feel that this ruling should lead to a mass boycott of music and video purchases. I don't believe the music and film industries have any right whatsoever to dictate what I should do with their product, once I have handed over my cash for it. Whilst I accept the distributing music for free over the Internet is illegal and unacceptable, I see no problem with creating a 'mix' of tracks on a CD to use in my car. This is nothing more than industrial dictatorship!
Andy, Leeds, UK

What does this ruling say about America; in the US gun manufacturers are not held responsible when their product is used to murder thousands of innocent people every year, while file-sharing networks are held liable for their user's actions? Another low point for the US justice system.
Ephraim, California, USA

I totally disagree with this ruling, but it does raise a very interesting issue. If the developer of a technology can now be held accountable for its illegal use, what of the weapons industry? Can they now be sued if the guns they create are used to commit crimes?
H K Gadhia, Copenhagen, Denmark

Though I support copyright, I do not support such odd-ball rulings that will only serve to create chaos in the US. Though the justices have been careful in their ruling, this opens a Pandora 's Box of questions and problems for companies whose products may be used to do something illegal without their knowledge. Only lawyers will benefit from this ruling.
R. Elgin, Seoul, South Korea

Music has long been big business. If a musician plays a charity every so often they think they are hip. We have wonderful musicians that never become corporations, so here's to listening to them more.
Barbara Schmidlapp, Ashland, United States

What about open source file-sharing programs like Bittorrent, where it is not clear who actually made it? It is impossible to sue someone you don't know, right? I guess what will happen is that the file-sharing community goes underground again, and will be even harder to trace than is the case now. Accordingly, this ruling is a typical case of limited vision.
Roel, Reading, UK

What's next, cases against all companies that make CD copying software?
Srikanth, Falls Church, VA, USA

This ruling raises some very interesting issues in relation to the liability of publishers, the makers and marketing of weapons, and even of vehicles designed to exceed the speed limits.
Ken White, Santa Cruz, California

This is a sad day in the fight for information freedom Mark Rowan, Birmingham, UK

Bye-bye digital rights. This is a sad day in the fight for information freedom. Now greedy corporates have more control than ever over what we can and can't do with our data. Peer-to-peer software is a beautifully efficient method of content distribution and the media companies should have realised and embraced this, rather than spurring on the inevitable 'underground' file sharing movement which will undoubtedly strengthen over instant messaging applications, etc. Can you imagine MSN being sued for enabling copyright infringement via the file transfer facilities in its Messenger service?
Mark Rowan, Birmingham, UK

I think that this case highlights the severity of illegal file sharing and that it needs to be curbed immediately. The blame should be placed on the firms, rather than the users because they are encouraging it. By going for the jugular, instead of the mass users, then the American Courts are sending out a clear message. It disappoints me to see bands frequently being ripped off, as it is a known fact that many up and coming bands fail to secure long term deals due to low finance. Illegal file sharing accelerates this problem and I feel that all illegal file sharing is banned, and the networks are shut down. For good.
Ben Stephenson, Berwick upon Tweed

No. It would be impossible to create a program capable of differentiating between what I record in my home studio (and wish to share for free) and the millions of copyrighted songs available on the internet. This decision will effectively kill the file-sharing industry in its infancy, and return us to the good old days when the record labels and major studios controlled the access to content.
Andrew Parrish, Memphis, Tennessee, US

What a silly verdict! I wonder when the manufacturers of guns will be held liable for the illegal use of their weapons. Or what about car manufacturers for the illegal use of vehicles used to commit crimes? I am forced to wonder how much financial influence the recording companies had over the court.
Robert Phillips, Cardiff, UK

The file-sharing software couldn't run without Windows - so can Microsoft also be blamed for "allowing their software to be used for file-sharing"? What about the company that sold the PC? Or the companies providing the phone lines and internet connections? File-sharing software just allows people to share files. That in itself cannot be illegal as it is the very basis of the World Wide Web. It's not a very logical ruling, but it appears to be more influenced by pressure from big business than by logic.
Graham Stewart, Edinburgh, UK

It's completely fair to hold them responsible for copyright infringement if they have been found to promote it Dave, London

It appears they've ruled against these companies not for the software they have produced, but for their actions in promoting the software as a way of violating copyright. I think it's completely fair to hold them responsible for copyright infringement if they have been found to promote it. I hope this won't make the software illegal though. That is going too far as you can use it for completely legal purposes.
Dave, London

I have mixed views about this ruling. While it is illegal, the entertainment industry has failed to get the point, which is that consumer are fed up of being ripped off by the unnecessarily high prices for CDs/DVDs and they are using the power of the internet to get make the point that we the consumer are not prepared to be ripped off any more. If the restrictions on the legal download were relaxed ie being restricted to the WMA format, storage restrictions etc then it will go a long way to make the consumer happier.
Nicola, London, UK

This is a very ugly precedent that could have vast implications that stretch far beyond the music and film industry. I hope Europe does not toe the line on this one - but I hold out little hope.
Dirk Bruere, Bedford, England

I absolutely agree with the ruling by the US Supreme Court, may they fine the companies that made millions whilst denying true artists their full profits.
Mike, Reading

The logic in making technology illegal because of its potential to be abused is flawed and historically a failed means towards an unobtainable end. This court decision will drive the copyright violators further underground and hurt the legitimate uses for pier-to-pier networking as the threat of liability makes its implementation too costly.
Michael, Dallas, Texas, USA

Does the results of this case imply that for example, car manufacturers will now be liable for people who use their vehicle as a weapon?
Peter Jay, England

Utterly wrong decision. Software companies should not be held responsible for the use that legitimate software is put to. Car manufacturers are not held responsible for people driving dangerously, gun manufacturers are not prosecuted every time there's a shooting, why is this any different? To me this is just yet another example of how the US courts are automatically weighted in favour of the rich and powerful - the music and entertainment industry. Let's not forget that this software was not written specifically to help people illegally swap copyrighted material but to make distributing any large file to many people easier. If some people wish to use it for illegal purposes this is neither the fault nor the responsibility of the creators.
Steve, London, UK

They have opened a can of worms with this ruling Ady Carter, York, UK

They have opened a can of worms with this ruling. I can see future gadget development been stifled as people are too scared to release innovative products in case someone finds an illegal use for them.
Ady Carter, York, UK

The USA is always so keen to allow the market to decide the value of the product, except when the market decides that the product isn't worth paying for. I think that file sharing is never going to go away, and that the entertainment industry is going to look increasingly stupid by trying to stop it from happening.
Gary Chiles, Wellington, New Zealand

This decision is unbelievable. Can we now expect to see gun manufacturers held responsible for the way in which their products are used? The gun lobby keep saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." But in the case of software, it's the software that's responsible. I sense an inconsistency here.
Christopher Slater-Walker, Watford England

I would pay for music if the record companies were not trying to have their cake and eat it Tony, UK

I would pay for music if the record companies were not trying to have their cake and eat it. The cost for downloading a CD should be the same as record companies' profit margin plus the artists cut and no more. This is because we are responsible for buying the media, creating the CD, there is no retailer cut and there is no distribution/storage costs. Why should the record companies expect the full price of a CD when they are not selling us the finished product.
Tony, UK

We as working artists, whether super stars or not, will all benefit as a result of this ruling. The government has finally shown a willingness to support us.
David Crosby, CA, USA

The difference between VCRs and these new file sharing programs is obvious, so the result is hardly surprising. But given the digital nature of files being shared nowadays, why not cap the duration that the files last? Surely that's a task for anyone complaining about stifling innovation!
Gareth, London, UK

Intellectual property rights are granted to creators because there is a benefit to society from their creativity. But the large entertainment firms have warped that concept to serve their interests and their greed. File sharing is a backlash against that, and legal rulings against file sharing won't solve the problem. The problem needs to be solved at its source: big business.
Craig, Bethesda, MD, USA

I don't think the ruling will have much effect in curbing illegal file-sharing. Loopholes will be found, such as creating a network in a country outside of the US where their copyright infringement laws do not apply. I also believe the file-sharing technology itself will improve and become more elusive.
Dan Knobloch, Milwaukee, WI, USA

The genie is out of the bottle, and will be hard to put back and replace the stopper. Again we see that the entertainment firms are playing catch up when it comes to modern technology. We have had this argument since the first disc was sold and VHS, beta video. What next will the entertainment firms go round boot fairs asking you to give the money to them once you sold on the DVD to another person?
B, UK

Fantastic - More rules to make sure that the public are ripped off. This rule has nothing whatsoever to do with small musicians (me being one of them) making enough money to live on. It's to do with major corporations being able to sell overpriced CDs of the latest 'big' group for as much money as possible before the hype lost and they need to plug someone else
Michael Kelly, Wantage

This ruling was made by people who don't understand progress. This is just the thin end of the wedge. Files can be swapped using email and instant messenger also, does this mean that the developers of these programs can be blamed when they are used in this way? It's ridiculous!
Colin, UK

Sony (who got the original betamax verdict) is strangely quiet on this. As the owners of several record and film companies and the manufacturers of CD/DVD burners does this mean they are responsible for the copyright theft of their own music & movies?
Peter Durrand, Edinburgh

This decision by the court is sadly a major blow to the evolving technology of the internet.
Emad, Canada

This ruling makes sense. It has long been acceptable to make copies for personal use (tapes, mp3s, etc.), but the file sharing software went beyond personal use. Obtaining copyrighted material through file sharing is no different than buying a pirated copy, except you didn't even have to pay anyone for the copied file.
Don Hoenig, St Charles, MO, USA

It is a ridiculous step to hold those providing a benign service responsible for misuse Robert A Wood, New York

Are phone companies liable for the conversation that is carried over their lines? It is a ridiculous step to hold those providing a benign service responsible for misuse. Napster, Kazaa, Bittorrent - these services and many more have helped revolutionize the way information is stored and shared. This ruling will only scare many brilliant ideas into the dark.
Robert A Wood, New York, USA

No, not at all. This decision shows the disability of the law making bodies to reach any reasonable solution. If software is companies or technology developers are to blame for illegal use then I think we should stop developing and innovating and we should close all software companies.
Atif, Denmark

The ruling will have little effect on the downloading of movies and music. Technology will adapt and people will find a way to trade songs no matter what. The entertainment corporations will fade inevitably. The glory days are over for them.
Milic, US

If someone gets killed using a gun made by Smith and Wesson does the manufacturer get prosecuted?
Ollie, Hamburg, Germany

File sharing all started with Napster a little over five years ago. Since then it's escalated to the extent that it's denting the producer's profits. 99% of computer users have downloaded an mp3 or movie. In theory it was the right decision but to actually stop it? Impossible.
Dan, Wollongong, Australia

I am surprised and amazed by this decision. If it were up to the media companies, we'd still only be watching movies in the theatres. We can all kiss innovation in consumer media goodbye.
Matthew Dollacker, Atlanta, USA

Does this mean eBay is responsible for any stolen merchandise sold through eBay auctions? What's the difference?
Dave Morris, Berwyn Heights, MD, US

I have no doubt the judges have been bought. Soon car makers will be liable for accidents caused by negligent drivers.
Paul S, San Diego, USA

I think that this is a bizarre ruling Sahil Kumar, Minneapolis

I think that this is a bizarre ruling. How can you hold a firm or individual responsible if some people 'illegally' use something 'legal' that is manufactured and distributed by a firm or individual for some other purpose? The software and technology that these companies produce are not technically meant for swapping music and videos but if some people make the wrong use of the available technology, how can we blame the makers of that technology?
Sahil Kumar, Minneapolis, MN

It's early days to comment. We need to see the full ruling, but it seems a strange ruling at face value. Are we going to start suing the major motor manufacturers for all the citizens killed by their automobiles? Why is software any different? It's the user the commits the crime not the software developer or vendor.
Barry, London

This seems unfair to the file-sharing services, who were under the impression that they were legally protected by the agreements their users sign on to (however disingenuously), and the applicable legal precedents. Meanwhile a valuable application of the Internet is crippled by a responsibility that should be that of lawyers and law enforcement.
Nate, Washington, DC

I agree that if the service is set up for illegal swapping of copyrighted material it should be sued. But the state needs to prove intent and not just the way the service is being done. There must be a better way of policing copyrighted material. Maybe it is making the transaction visible so that a 'ticket', like a traffic ticket, could be issued when the person is caught. That way the person doing the illegal is the one that is punished and not the provider of the service. We don't punish the automobile makers when someone speeds.
Joe, Cleveland, USA

We must remember - internet is not just in the US. And most of the p2p programs didn't come from there either. So as long as the majority of European and Asian countries don't go that way it is not a catastrophe, just a minor setback to the free sharing of any kind of digital data.
Argo K, Tallinn, Estonia

Should companies who make kitchen knives be responsible if people stab one another with them?
Richard Hawkins, Charlotte, USA

The music and film industries are getting greedy. To their shareholders they tell them each year is better than the last - to the courts they say they are being crippled. They need to dance one tune. Does this open the way for companies to sue video recorder manufacturers again? And will this mean that mp3 players, video cameras, telephones, fax machines, phone companies, photocopiers, tape recorders, DVD recorders, TiVO's and hard drive manufacturers are next in line.
Alex Clark, Aberdeen, UK

If you really look at this ruling it's not a terribly bad one. It is reasonable to assume if you market a product as doing something illegal and that's the reason to get it, you can be held liable. Software like Bittorrent, which is simply a way to move large files easily, will not be affected.
Kyle, Gilmanton, WI, USA

I think this is possibly one of the most damaging decisions in technological history and a big kick to the face of innovation. File sharing creators will now have to find the money to sort the problem out or be sued for lack of action. Once again instead of the record/movie industries doing their job and protecting the artists when this problem arose many years ago, they have moaned like spoilt children until a decision came their way. They have lost no money at all now. Only the artists have and the makers of the software. Shame on you.
Ben Randall, Birmingham

This is ridiculous. Can video rental stores be prosecuted if people rent movies and copy them? This is a clear example of the record and movie industries blaming the wrong people.
Jeff, Summit, NJ, USA