Intellectual Property and the Grokster Decision
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE GROKSTER DECISION -- (House of Representatives - June 27, 2005)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sánchez) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the United States Supreme Court for their ruling today in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Incorporated v. Grokster. By a unanimous ruling, 9-0 in favor of MGM, the Supreme Court sent a strong message today that our courts will protect the work of creative artists.
I represent the 39th Congressional District in California. My State, region, and district are home to the motion picture industry, the music industry, and software companies. Many of my constituents work in these creative industries, and I know from talking to them that piracy hits their companies hard and their pocketbooks harder.
Intellectual property is important to our economy as a whole, so copyright infringements also severely damage our national economy. In fact, according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance, in 2002, core copyright industries accounted for over 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. That is over $626 billion. When you look at all copyright industries, they accounted for approximately 12 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, or $1.25 trillion in 2002 alone.
Obviously, intellectual property is a vital part of our economy, and piracy robs our economy of billions of dollars from this important industry.
Conservative estimates say that counterfeiting of U.S. businesses' copyrighted goods cost our economy between $200-$400 billion each year. When our economy suffers like that, America's workers suffer, too.
The ``core'' copyright industries alone were estimated to have employed 4 percent of U.S. workers in 2002, a total of 5.48 million workers. But piracy causes 750,000 American workers to lose their jobs each year.
This is where intellectual property laws come in and why the Supreme Court decision today in the Grokster is so important. The Court drew a line in the sand in the Grokster case and said that peer-to-peer file-sharing networks that encourage illegal file-sharing should not be shielded by our laws. The ruling protects the creative community but also allows the public to retain access to the benefits of peer-to-peer file-sharing technology.
Mr. Speaker, I love movies and music as much as any consumer, and I use computer software every single day. I am also a fan of the Internet, and I want consumers to be able to use technology to get their favorite music and movies conveniently.
But stealing is stealing. Swapping copyrighted files online is illegal, and just because it is easy doesn't make it right. We can have peer-to-peer networks that give every American access to the files they want online, and also provide creators with copyright protections.
As long as companies like Grokster are allowed to facilitate illegal file swapping, we will continue to lose hundreds of dollars and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs each year.
I am pleased that the Supreme Court took the first step today in Grokster towards ending illegal copyright infringement online, and protecting the industries that produce copyrighted works.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov