 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·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. |
|
 KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | said by Tsume: 2] The case is going back to a lower court, so in effect, the supreme court's ruling really didn't do anything? No, that is standard procedure. The supreme court decides the rule of law, then sends the case back down for the rule to be APPLIED. Grokster lost, despite being on the right side of the law, the supreme court just CHANGED THE LAW, overturned betamax, and screwed everyone who thinks innovation is more important than monopolist cartels. |
|
TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
| Ohh, I get it now. So I guess we're going to start seeing all courts saying that Bittorrent eDonkey and all of those have NO LEGITIMATE uses and they get sued. Right. Obviously I'll need to move somewhere else when I turn 18.
--
Verizon's CEO is the business equivilant to Germany's Adolf Hitler. |
|
KaltesPremium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA | said by Tsume:Ohh, I get it now. So I guess we're going to start seeing all courts saying that Bittorrent eDonkey and all of those have NO LEGITIMATE uses and they get sued. Right. Obviously I'll need to move somewhere else when I turn 18. No, thanks to this case, the fact that "Bittorrent eDonkey and all of those" have legitimate uses is irrelevant, that is the OLD rule. It no longer matters. You could have all the legitimate uses in the world and it won't save you. |
|
TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Comcast
| quote:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses,"
So I guess that means if something CAN be used to infinge copyright, it's illegal? What the FUCK.
Oh no, someone broke into our house and stole $5000 worth of stuff... I'm going to sue the people who made the door to our house because it CAN be opened allowing people to come in and steal stuff... uh... WHAT THE HELL DAMNIT
--
Verizon's CEO is the business equivilant to Germany's Adolf Hitler. |
|
| reply to Kaltes
No, look at the ruling. What it means is that the legality is determined by the way the service is promoted. If whoever is marketing it touts it as a way to get pirated content, then that is illegal.
As an example, look at radar detectors. If they were marketed as a way to speed and not get caught, they'd fall into the same category. And you'll notice that the companies selling them are very careful not to advertise them that way, although you and I know exactly why people buy them. |
|
|
|
| reply to Kaltes
I thought that only congress could make laws? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the law not create the law. That is all part of the check and balances. Hmmm...looks like **AA has just been able to circumvent congress. |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | said by kraughl:I thought that only congress could make laws? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the law not create the law. That is all part of the check and balances. Hmmm...looks like **AA has just been able to circumvent congress. Unless I'm mistaken the SCOTUS did simply that--interpret the law(s), not the least of which would be the DMCA (among others).
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23
1 edit | reply to kraughl
said by kraughl:I thought that only congress could make laws? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the law not create the law. That is all part of the check and balances. Hmmm...looks like **AA has just been able to circumvent congress. Exactly, and that's why it's so important to put Conservatives on the Court who will conserve the law because right now you have activist Liberal judges who don't interpret the Constitution or conserve the law, but MAKE law.
--
"tick...tick...tick..."
»www.jtf.org/
|
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes:The supreme court decides the rule of law, then sends the case back down for the rule to be APPLIED. Grokster lost, despite being on the right side of the law, the supreme court just CHANGED THE LAW, overturned betamax, and screwed everyone who thinks innovation is more important than monopolist cartels. So take this example, and tell me at what point I run a reasonable risk of being sued by someone...
I'm learning a new language, let's say Python. I like to learn by building something useful, or by building something that already exists in some form. So let's say that I want to make a P2P type application, just to see if I can and to gain experience in this language and to better understand how current P2P applications work.
Here are some steps, where do I run afoul of the law?
-I learn enough Python to do some basic networking and can transfer a file from one of my machines to another
-I put together a design that describes what my protocol will be, and how it will work. It's enough information that a programmer could implement my idea.
-I extend the above to make it somehow "unique" in comparison to other P2P services (optional)
-I implement my own client using my initial design
-I test it within my own network
-I give it to 50 friends to test it, and attach a "BSD" license (do what you will with the code, but credit me)
-I tell those friends I'm happy with what I've made, feel free to give this out to anyone, I don't want anything further to do with it
So I've learned what I wanted to learn, and I'm ready to move on to something else. Have I broken the law by sharing what I've learned? By sharing what I created? |
|
 stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | As far as I understand it, the only place you would be in danger of breaking the law, as it is not being interpreted, is if your client software was tailored specifically for movies or music and/or your backbone had something specific in it for music or movies as opposed to just data files in general.
It's the applications and P2P systems that are just designed around the transfer of movies and music that are being targeted here.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by stet:As far as I understand it, the only place you would be in danger of breaking the law, as it is not being interpreted, is if your client software was tailored specifically for movies or music and/or your backbone had something specific in it for music or movies as opposed to just data files in general. It's the applications and P2P systems that are just designed around the transfer of movies and music that are being targeted here. Well, since I'm talking about sharing files of any type, do I cross the line? It's just ideas turned into software. The software does not emote, nor does it care what is inside a file that it's uploading/downloading/indexing. |
|
