Lobbying group P2P United has released a statement following the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which uphold previous court protection of P2P companies.

"The Ninth Circuit's complete and utter rejection today of the
entertainment industries' attempts to warp long-standing,
pro-innovation copyright law into a weapon against peer-to-peer
technology and its developers is a profound and major victory for the
American consumer and our economy."

Continue for full statement—

WASHINGTON (AUGUST 19, 2004) —-   Adam Eisgrau, Executive Director of
P2PUnited – the Washington-based trade association of the peer-to-peer
technology industry representing the developers of BearShare,
Blubster, Grokster, eDonkey and Morpheus P2P software – released the
following statement on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ stunning
and complete affirmation today of last Spring’s Federal District Court
ruling that such developers do not infringe copyright by developing
and distributing their popular software programs used by tens of
millions of Americans:

”The Ninth Circuit’s complete and utter rejection today of the
entertainment industries’ attempts to warp long-standing,
pro-innovation copyright law into a weapon against peer-to-peer
technology and its developers is a profound and major victory for the
American consumer and our economy.   Critically, the court cut through
and rejected Hollywood’s and ‘Big Music’s’ propaganda about
peer-to-peer software and the P2P United member companies sued in this
case (Grokster and Streamcast) to find the truth:

—- peer-to-peer software is not only capable of many important and
substantial non-commercial uses that do not infringe copyright, but
is also used now for valuable commercial purposes, as well;

—- decentralized peer-to-peer software programs, like Grokster and
Morpheus, were built to and do comply fully with current copyright
law; and

—- before the time-tested law set down by the Supreme Court in the Sony
Betamax case 20 years ago is changed, extreme caution and care is
required to avoid killing a revolutionary technology in its cradle.”

”While the court acknowledged that only Congress can make the kind of
radical change in copyright law that the copyright cartel wanted in
this case, it also clearly indicated that having the power to make
change does not mean that change should be made.  P2P United
respectfully urges every Member of Congress to heed the court’s strong
advice that such radical change would be ‘unwise’ and, if they read no
other part of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, to take the court’s
following observations to heart:

’The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old
markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are
sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history
has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in
balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a
copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a
karaoke machine, or an MP3 player.’

’The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of
what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially
the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright
infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding
precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would
satisfy the Copyright Owners’ immediate economic aims. However, it
would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown
ultimate consequences outside the present context.’

”The court is right and neither pending legislation nor more
litigation will make a market for the 21st Century that puts the power
of peer-to-peer technology to work for the public and for the artists
that multi-national copyright aggregators so cynically claim to speak
for.”