On August 19 the appeal on the (in)famous Grokster case of the District Court of California (April 25, 2003) has been filed. The Court of Appeal was to decide on the alleged liability of p2p software distributors.

Regarding the contributory copyright infringement claim, the Court ruled, as p2p software is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, that such distributors can only be held liable when proven that they had reasonable knowledge of specific infringing files and that they had failed to act on that knowledge to prevent infringement. However,

“Failure” to alter software located on another’s computer is simply not akin to the failure to delete a filename from one’s own computer, to the failure to cancel the registration name and password of a particular user from one’s user list, or to the failure to make modifications to software on one’s own computer

The Court reasoned similarly regarding the vicarious copyright infringement claim :

a duty to alter software and files located on one’s own computer system is quite different in kind from a duty to alter software located on another person’s computer

Due to the decentralized structure of p2p networks, providers of software such as Grokster and KaZaA are in no position to control the users of their software.

Yet again the music industry suffers a major setback. Case law unanimously rejected the industry’s arguments. p2p software cannot be ruled illegal. Under present laws that is.