US Supreme Court rules companies liable for illegal downloads

Among them, the court said software makers that actively encouraged people to download free copies of music or movies could be held liable for their users\' illegal acts. The decision is an important victory for the entertainment industry in its fight against the illegal file-sharing of music and films. The Los Angeles Times reports the case was brought by 28 studios, including Walt Disney and Time Warner, and major record companies, against two file-sharing networks, Grockster and StreamCast Networks. The ruling overturned an Appeal Court decision in favour of the software makers. Lawyers for the entertainment industry argued that the likes of Grokster were used almost exclusively for illegal purposes. Full report in the Los Angeles Times

The court has struck a blow against media freedom, by declining to take up an appeal against a contempt of court conviction by two journalists for refusing to reveal their sources. Judith Miller, of The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, of Time magazine, refused to disclose the source who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The journalists, reports The Boston Globe, had appealed on free speech grounds. Each reporter faces up to 18 months in jail. Officials in the Bush administration leaked Plame\'s identity after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly undercut President Bush\'s rationale for invading Iraq. Full report in The Boston Globe

And it has handed down divided rulings on the government display of religious symbols. It ruled a six-foot-high Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol was constitutional while saying that framed copies of the Commandments on the walls of two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional, reports The New York Times. The question was whether either display violated the First Amendment\'s prohibition against an official ‘establishment’ of religion. The outcome indicates that religious symbols that have been on display for many years, with little controversy, are likely to be upheld, while newer displays intended to advance a modern religious agenda will be met with suspicion and disfavour from the court. Full report in The New York Times