Print Article for : Supreme Court Recent Decisions

[S1168]Supreme Court Recent Decisions

by Greg Chapman, Gre

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court made a 5-4 landmark ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that may have long term implications for the automobile industry. The court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to and should consider actions to establish emissions regulations for new automobiles under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Massachusetts, along with other states, local governments and organizations sued the EPA on the grounds that by refusing to regulate the automobile industry for greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA was not fulfilling its obligations under the Clean Air Act, a case which Massachusetts and the others had lost in the lower courts. The Clean Air Act is a federal law regulating air emissions from multiple sources and giving the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to enact National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the sake of public health as well as the environment. When Massachusetts v. EPA reached the Supreme Court, in question was whether the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the power to regulate new vehicle emissions, and if so, whether the reasons given by the Environmental Protection Agency for neglecting to do so were in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA’s main argument was that it did not interpret the language of the Clean Air Act as giving the EPA authority to establish regulations for new car emissions, adding that even if it had the authority, the agency did not believe that regulating emissions in the automobile industry would be a sensible decision. The EPA reasoned that a definite causal relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming had not been established, among other reasons for believing that regulating car emissions would be unwise.

The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA did in fact have the authority to regulate such matters, asserting that greenhouse gases fall well into the definition of “air pollutant" as it is defined within the text of the Clean Air Act. Further, the court ruled that the EPA had cited policy conflicts as justification for its claim that it would not be a wise decision to regulate the automobile industry, while reasons for the claim should have relied on scientific findings.

The court did not oblige the EPA to take actions regulating the industry, rather it determined that the EPA does in fact have the authority to do so, and must provide reasons for not regulating which are in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled peer-to-peer sites such as Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus can be held responsible for copyright infringement by their users. In a rare 9-0 decision in favor of Plaintiff MGM, the Justices held that a business distributing technology with the active intent of promoting copyright violations could not escape liability for subsequent copyright infringements. Although unanimous, the ruling is a strained effort to isolate file sharing from other industries.

In arguing their position, Grokster had relied on previous rulings regarding VHS technology. In a 1984 case, the Supreme Court ruled the makers of VHS recorders could not be held liable for copyright piracy by users of the machines. The Court specifically ruled that VHS and any other technology with "substantially non-infringing uses" could not be held responsible if individuals illegally taped movies or shows off of television. Indeed, lower courts had ruled in favor of Grokster using the VHS ruling as precedent. So, what's the difference between the two technologies?

In a somewhat tortured reasoning, the Justices distinguished the two cases by focusing on the "intent" of the companies. If a company distributes a technology with the intent that it be used by third parties for copyright infringement, then it is responsible. "Intent" is shown by a company making a "clear expression" of such intent or taking affirmative steps in said direction.

Writing the opinion, Justice Souter explained:

"There is no evidence that Grokster…made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files,"

He further explained,

"The company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."

No Nail In The Coffin

The entertainment industry is trumpeting the end of file sharing. This ruling is no such thing. To understand the impact of the ruling, a brief discussion of legal procedure is necessary.

The Supreme Court decision does not find Grokster liable for anything. Instead, it simply reverses a lower court ruling that Grokster could not possibly be found liable. As a result, the case will return to the trial court and eventually go to trial. In the trial, the Plaintiff will have to prove that Grokster distributed file-sharing software with the intent that it be used for copyright infringement. Proving such a case will not be easy since “intent” is a vague concept.

In Closing

The decision of the Supreme Court provides the entertainment industry with a basis for pursuing file sharing companies. Is file sharing at an end? Not likely.

Article Source :

About Author

Both Greg Chapman & Rick Chapo are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.

Greg Chapman has sinced written about articles on various topics from Brakes, Cars and Air Filters. About the Author: Greg Chapman, of Greg Chapman Motors, is a leading has depended on since 1959. For more information please visit. Greg Chapman's top article generates over 40500 views. to your Favourites.

Rick Chapo has sinced written about articles on various topics from Phishing, Home Improvement and Women. . Rick Chapo's top article generates over 22200 views. to your Favourites.