[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14383-14384]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               SUPREME COURT DECISION ON MGM v. GROKSTER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Watson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), 
and a colleague who wanted to be here as well but could not be, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), to react to a unanimous 
decision that came down today by the Supreme Court in the MGM v. 
Grokster case.
  That ruling is a victory for American innovation. Artists will 
thrive, be encouraged to create the music and movies we love, and 
legitimate technology companies that distribute those same movies and 
music will no longer have to compete with piracy profiteers. 
Conversely, services that breed a culture of contempt for intellectual 
property will have to answer for their ill-gotten gains.
  In addition to providing us with movies, sound recordings, computer 
games and software, books and other creative works, the core copyright 
industry accounts for over 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic 
product. Businesses that rely on copyright employ more than 11 million 
U.S. workers. Unfortunately, the copyright piracy taking place over 
peer-to-peer networks has become a great threat to the livelihoods of 
all copyright creators. Therefore, robust protection for creativity is 
necessary to support everyone from the most famous artists to the 
completely unknown set designer, from shareholders and executives of 
studios and R&D record companies and software companies to the many 
thousands of hourly-wage earners who work for them.
  Piracy robs creators and owners of sound recordings and movies of 
their right to be first in the market. But most harmful, peer-to-peer 
networks have created a culture where too many consumers, including our 
children, are accustomed to receiving their choice of entertainment 
anytime, anyplace, in any format for free, without providing the 
creator his or her rightful compensation.
  In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court has told businesses that 
facilitate copyright infringement that they will be held directly 
accountable for their actions. A business cannot model its success on 
the destruction of another's industry. To paraphrase Justice Kennedy's 
observation in the oral argument, unlawful expropriated property cannot 
be used by a business as part of its start-up capital.
  This decision ``does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or 
discourage innovation having lawful promise.'' It has merely found a 
balance between the legitimate demand of copyright owners for effective 
protection and the rights of others to engage in substantially 
unrelated areas of commerce. Just because the transmission of these 
files happened in the ether, does not mean that the protection should 
only be symbolic. Just because we are in a digital age, the definition 
of stealing does not change. If I go to a store and take a CD without 
paying for it, I am stealing. If I go to a peer-to-peer network and 
download a song for free, I am also stealing.
  The Supreme Court has instructed businesses: ``You may not entice 
individuals to commit a moral and legal wrong.'' It is willing to hold 
businesses responsible for the part they play in

[[Page 14384]]

promoting theft. It has issued a loud warning that companies will not 
be allowed to gain from illegal distribution. Those that specifically 
design their business models to target the demand for copyright 
infringement will be stuck wearing the bulls-eye.
  Shed no tears: these illegitimate peer-to-peer networks are not 
innovators; they are free riders. Their services make it hard to teach 
our children about right and wrong. They send adware, spyware, viruses, 
and pornography on to our computers and into our homes. There are a 
great many reasons for parents, teachers, creators, and others to 
rejoice about the message the Supreme Court sent today.
  Both the content and tech industry must continue developing 
innovative and legitimate ways to distribute content so that consumers 
can access entertainment on a variety of devices. This decision will 
improve opportunities for legitimate music and movie distribution, 
putting out of business the black marketeers.
  This decision has provided greater protection for intellectual 
property rights and has provided the tools to effectively combat 
copyright theft. In turn, it will keep an engine of America's economic 
growth thriving by promoting innovation and creativity in entertainment 
and the arts. The decision is also a win for legitimate technology 
companies. Those who have structured their businesses to distribute 
content in innovative and legal ways that compensate the creator while 
providing consumers quality in choice should laud this decision.
  The Founding Fathers dealt with pirates on the high seas and had the 
intuition to address the pirates over the air. They afforded protection 
in the Constitution for intellectual property rights that serve as the 
cornerstone of American innovation. The Supreme Court today has helped 
carry out the mission of article I section 8 of the Constitution by 
promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

                          ____________________