File-swappers took another blow last week as the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the entertainment industry in a decision that impacts Internet users everywhere-including OU. In the June 27 Supreme Court decision of MGM v. Grokster, MGM prevailed over Grokster and other Internet-based companies that allow people to download copyrighted music and movies.For many people, the Supreme Court's decision leaves them with a multitude of questions.Members of the entertainment industry, however, are applauding the decision saying it is a significant victory for copyright holders. "The Supreme Court's unanimous decision is a resounding victory for creative content industries and technology providers who together are trying to develop legitimate business on the Internet," said Andrew Lack, CEO of Sony BMG Music Entertainment.Many OU students have opinions about what this decision will mean in the future and whether the Supreme Court made the right decision.Bill Bullard, nursing senior, said while he had used Napster, he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision. "I think they should be sued if they are giving away free music," he said. "The musicians are performing a service and should be paid."However, Starr Zovak, music senior, said she has a problem with the assertion that musicians are being ripped off by the file-sharing companies. Zovak said musicians don't really make money off the recordings. "All the money goes to the company," she said. Zovak said record companies should not be the ones to decide whether to sue or not. "I think it should be up to the musicians," she said. Zovak said some artists are in favor of downloading and some think it's wrong.Other students believe it is better that the entertainment industry can now go after file-sharing companies instead of only suing individuals who download."If you're helping people steal the music, then I guess I would agree with the decision," said Justine Guyton, chemistry senior. "It's better than going after individuals."The Supreme Court's ruling sends the trial back to the original courts, which had ruled in favor of the file-sharing companies the first time, according to The Associated Press. If entertainment companies win, file-sharing companies could pay billions of dollars.Tim Helms, accounting senior, said he downloaded music until the penalties became stiffer. He said he agrees with the decision but is careful to state the importance of intent. "As long as they intentionally infringe on copy rights, I agree with the decision," Helms said. He also said he worries about companies suing for things such as trading pictures on the Internet to family and friends.Anna Lowe, graduate student, said she doesn't download but worries about what will happen to the definition of this decision in the future. "I think the problem in the future becomes what it means to be stealing," Lowe said.She said she also worries that software companies such as Adobe will be held responsible because people use its software on copyrighted pictures.Jennifer Cooper, graduate student, said she has concerns whether these companies should be held responsible for illegal downloading. "The people know what they're downloading," Cooper said.Ryan Vaughn, graduate student, said companies should not be faulted for customers' use of their products."To me, if there can be a legitimate use for those companies, then they should not be held liable for customers' misuse."Sabella Abidde, graduate student, said the Supreme Court was off with its decision. He believes the entertainment industry needs to come up with less expensive ways to put out music. "No one wants to pay $15 for a CD," Abidde said. "They were really wrong. They are not caught up with the technological era."The black-eye suffered by Grokster in the trial has caused many to wonder what comes next in the courts and what decision lies ahead. ��
hello there & you too