| |||||||||||||
The Grokster ruling -- good for open sourceThe Grokster ruling -- good for open sourcePosted Jun 30, 2005 3:47 UTC (Thu) by ssavitzky (guest, #2855)Parent article: The Grokster ruling What the ruling means is that the promotion of file sharing as a business model is dead. As several other publications have pointed out, that leaves the field to the open-source software developers (I believe the WSJ said "geeks", but we know who we are), who don't need a business model. BitTorrent and Freenet are perhaps the best examples, but there are plenty of others. Let's not forget that NFS is a file-sharing technology, as is WebDAV. And before that there were FTP and UUCP. Make no mistake, file-sharing will flourish, and nobody will be making any money off it until some kind of flat-fee compulsory licensing model (like the one ASCAP figured out 95 years ago for radio and piano rolls) takes off.
(Log in to post comments)
The Grokster ruling -- good for open source Posted Jun 30, 2005 6:44 UTC (Thu) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link] This ruling will also effect the architecture of P2P software. I think wewill see a lot more of the bittorrent style divergence between search tools and services that find sources of files (legit and less-than-so) and tools that carry out the actual transfer mechanism. Thus, a torrent search tool/service, that does not implement even a basic filtering system could be liable, while the actual bittorent protocol client software would be much, much harder to go after.
The Grokster ruling -- good for open source Posted Jun 30, 2005 17:06 UTC (Thu) by fdesloges (guest, #291) [Link] The file sharing business model is dead _in_the_USA_. Money for suchbusinesses will just flow out of the US, and the US will loose the edge in yet another market.
|
|||||||||||||