Who Pissed in the Supreme Court’s Wheaties?
I go out of state for a long weekend, and the Supreme Court puts a big ol’ chill on technological innovation. Did someone steal the Supreme Court’s lunch money on the way to school, or throw their books into a mud puddle, or tell them they couldn’t stay up late to watch Letterman? Apparently, it’s not enough to abolish sections of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court also decided that it’s more important for large businesses to be able to sue small companies, and their users, into oblivion than to allow companies to develop products for the competitive marketplace.
This is not some “big business is bad” rant, as I’m not anti-business (although I wouldn’t say I trust any business to really give two shits about stomping all over the rights of any person/group in the name of profits: they are, after all, only in it for the money). In fact I consider what these large media corporations are trying to accomplish a horrible blow to business and the competitive market. It worries me that corporate groups, such as the RIAA and MPAA, who have in the past attempted to stifle innovation to protect their margins, but who were stopped by the courts, will soon find themselves able to dictate what technological innovations are “legal” and “safe” to build. I would also like to point out that the RIAA and MPAA were not only unaffected by earlier threats to their bottom line but eventually made billions off the new technology (the MPAA and home video rentals, for example).
Obviously, piracy is illegal, nor am I going to argue that P2P networks are rife with copyright infringement. However, allowing corporations to determine whether a someone else’s new invention makes it to market will lead to what many have termed a “chilling effect” on innovation. Overturning two lower court’s decisions in favor of the defendant (Grokster, Morpheus, Kazaa, and others), the Supreme Court’s decision now means that software maker’s can be held liable if their end-users use the software to infringe on copyright. As the EFF states:
This decision relies on a new theory of copyright liability that measures whether manufacturers created their wares with the “intent” of inducing consumers to infringe. It means that inventors and entrepreneurs will not only bear the costs of bringing new products to market, but also the costs of lawsuits if consumers start using their products for illegal purposes.
This could very well lead to innovators coming up with a great product that will never see the light of day because it might be used to infringe copyright, even if that was never the intent. A perfect example would be MP3 players. How many companies would design and distribute a tool that could play music obtained illegally? Would selling such a product “induce” consumers to piracy, even if the product is designed for legitimate uses? Would you, as a small business owner, want to go through the hassle and expense of trying to convince some massive group like the RIAA that your product is harmless? Would you be willing to bet your company’s life on your product never being used in a manner that would constitute infringment?
Innovation should not be dictated by corporations who fear change. The MPAA feared change with the Betamax and ended up making billions on home video rentals. Now they fear change because of digital distribution, but instead of learning from the past they are attempting to squash the genie who’s already out of the bottle. Instead, they ought to be researching ways to profit from unfettered innovation.
