User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The Grokster ruling -- good for open source

The Grokster ruling -- good for open source

Posted 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 we
will 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 such
businesses will just flow out of the US, and the US will loose the edge in
yet another market.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds