Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD | Thats stupid..
Maybe we should go after vehicle manufactures because they make vehicles that bank robbers get away in? Therefor they "facilitate" Crimes.
--
foamy | I'm psycho |
|
pablo4
Proud Owner Of The Cornballer
join:2004-08-11
Kanata, ON | Tomorrows News.
Hollywood sues your local ISP and as a result your monthly bill triples.
Plus don't forget all the vendors that make the internet possible. (Nortel, Cisco, ...) |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Here is a better article
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html
The important bit here is that whether a software maker is liable depends on:
quote:
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.
What does that mean exactly? I have no idea. |
|
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA | okay
who owes me a fiver.... i've gotta check my im logs |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | reply to pablo4
Re: Tomorrows News.
said by pablo4  :Hollywood sues your local ISP and as a result your monthly bill triples. Plus don't forget all the vendors that make the internet possible. (Nortel, Cisco, ...) This makes providers of file-trading services liable, not ISPs. It is actually clear about that point.
Read this article, it gives more information:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:  
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
Host:
Site Tools
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
| reply to joebear29
Re: Here is a better article
That means onshore people who would make like 'omgfreemovieshere.com' would be used if you download their movie search engine.
Bit Torrent for example, is not intended for software + music. Thus, Bram can get away with it.
--
Just because it's a theory, it does not inherit merit of the title.
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. |
|
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04 | Canada
At least this won't affect Canada and/or Canadian software, I hope. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| reply to Vamp
Re: Thats stupid..
don't be despondent yet all the Supreme Court did was send the issue back down to the courts for full litigation, remember court cases in question where bench rulings. Now they will have to go to full trial with a jury and everything else. It isn't over yet, and this is going to cost the RIAA's minions 10 of millions of dollars. Aren't most of the P2P's off shore now. I would like to see the recording industry tangle with the manufacturers of all of the MP3 players. There are many of these companies to whom the entire recording industry is a corner ma and pop drug store in terms of capitalization.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to Vamp
Bad example, since most automobile usage is for legal means. It is a fact that most file sharing is of copyrighted material for illegal use.
Fileswapping programs will have to find a way to prove that material being downloaded is actually not copyrighted material. In the next couple of weeks expect some huge lawsuits . |
|
inciter
Noobie
Premium
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
| reply to joebear29
Re: Tomorrows News.
said by joebear29 :said by pablo4 :Hollywood sues your local ISP and as a result your monthly bill triples. Plus don't forget all the vendors that make the internet possible. (Nortel, Cisco, ...) This makes providers of file-trading services liable, not ISPs. It is actually clear about that point. Read this article, it gives more information: » www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html Correct
We all know Kazzaz and other p2p programs are used for Piracy more than legit trading.
So what would this ruling do about usenet? Will Newsbin pro be classified with the same bundles as other p2ps? Should be interesting to hear. Usenet not being a software platform
Should be okay right? But the software used to pull files from it fall under this ruling correct?
--
Playing Table Tennisis not a matter of life or Death, It's much more important than that. |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to joebear29
Re: Here is a better article
It means that file sharing services that are tailored specifically for music and/or movie trading can be targeted. Open file sharing systems, like FTP or even BT, which don't have specific applications for music or movies should be safe because they really can be used for any kind of data files.
When an application or service is specifically designed around the trading of music or movie files, it's kind of hard to deny what it's being used for.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to JSRoman
Re: Thats stupid..
quote:
Bad example, since most automobile usage is for legal means. It is a fact that most file sharing is of copyrighted material for illegal use.
You're completely missing the point and impact though.
What is "file-sharing" and what defines the facilitation thereof? Google is often used for tracking down and downloading copyrighted materials. Does this mean they can be sued? Even though 99.99% of what they search for is *not* illegal?
Does this make indivdual ISP's liable for "faciliating"?
Seriously, with these broad of definitions as they're playing with just about anyone or anything could no be open to be sued for "facilitating" file-swapping.
The getaway car analogy is not far off at all (and one I've used before). |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | reply to lucky644
Re: Canada
With the Canadian DMCA now that's apparently just passed, you're not far off from it really. Just a couple court challenges away from the exact same spot. |
|
BoomerSooner
Premium
join:2004-02-11
·Pioneer Telephone ..
·Pioneer Internet
| reply to stet
Re: Here is a better article
Exactly right stet and the same thing sense that I got from it ...
"Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally."
Now had it said something like ...
"Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if their customers use software to swap songs and movies illegally"
then basically every file transferring internet based application (E-mail, FTP, IM, BT, yadda yadda) would be under the gun.
Seems this will just let them go after the "hard-core" theft software/platforms. The ones that openly advertise that you can get free COPYRIGHTED songs/movies/documents without permission. To go after BT and others, they'd have to PROVE that it was the INTENT and that it's being used PRIMARILY for song/movie swapping. That would require one heck of a lot in my opinion.
--
I'll take "Things Only I Would Know" for $10,000. |
|
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to lucky644
Re: Canada
said by lucky644 :At least this won't affect Canada and/or Canadian software, I hope. I wouldn't be too sure about that.
»The Canadian DMCA |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Somewhat balanced
It looks like this ruling is at least a little more balanced than the awful Induce Act would have been. If a P2P app maker is advertising their software by saying that you can download the latest chart topping hits for free, when such an action is really illegal, then they should be held accountable. No more promoting illegal activity, while proclaiming ignorance about how illegal activity could possibly have flourished on the network.
On the other hand, the "whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses" part (to quote the Washington Post article) could be tricky. Does that involve name matching? Does that involve a hash signature? Should they allow everything and then allow the RIAA to report abuses which would then be taken down? (Possibly then blocked in the future via a name matching/hash match algorithm.)
I'm sure that the RIAA will wind up claiming that Network X could have used a certain action to reduce piracy while Network X will claim that that action isn't "easily available."
The conspiracy theorist in me imagines the RIAA introducing their own P2P network and licensing their own method to prevent piracy. The method would be available to anyone, but would be pretty pricey. This would drive the freeware operators and other small players out of business (as the only other option would be wait to get sued for infringing uses). The RIAA would then be left with a handful of companies under their thumbs providing P2P services to the public with regular payments landing in the RIAA's pockets.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
inciter
Noobie
Premium
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
| reply to Primis1
Re: Thats stupid..
said by Primis1 : quote:
Google is often used for tracking down and downloading copyrighted materials. Does this mean they can be sued? Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.
We all know some p2p software is very shady and allow the files in question to be shared. MSM can transfer files of this type so they could fall but fact is as we all know it's the Kazzaz form of software that is targeted. Google is far from being a Kazzaz model for piates.
--
Playing Table Tennisis not a matter of life or Death, It's much more important than that. |
|
Tsume
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Embarq
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Wait wait wait...
So they are saying...
1] If it's designed for sharing copyrighted files than they can be sued. How do you determine that? I mean, Shareaza (ED2K/G1/G2) as well as Bittorrent aren't specifically designed for that... so they're off the hook?
2] The case is going back to a lower court, so in effect, the supreme court's ruling really didn't do anything?
--
Verizon's CEO is the business equivilant to Germany's Adolf Hitler. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Betamax has been overturned
This is a dark day. Substantial non-infringing uses has evidently been destroyed. I will have to read the whole opinion, but I don't see how there can be any silver lining here.
The copyright cartel has now been handed the power to destroy innovation. I can't believe that not one of those bastards had the backbone to dissent.
p2p will survive, but now it will be forced offshore. if you are an American and you want to publish p2p software, you had better either be poor (aka judgment-proof) or prepared to leave the country once the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs come for you. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to Mike
ambiguity = litigation
bram doesn't have the money to pay lawyers to spend years arguing that he does not fit within "intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally", which is not a quote from the case, btw.
assuming the article is accurate, anyone who releases any p2p app in the US can expect to get sued. no one working on these programs has the money to fight such a lawsuit. that leads to the same result as losing in court. |
|
