tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to Kaltes
good to the last drop
Well, I should have known better than to jump in the middle of a bipartisan rant. 
IT Guy: You won't win your argument with dogma, unsupported conjectures and name-calling.
Kaltes: You won't win your argument with dogma, unnecessarily caustic speech and name-calling.
Switching to decaf does wonders. Green tea is even better.
If anyone wants me, I'll be outside getting some sun. The LCD screen ain't cuttin' it.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to tapeloop
Re: moronic, contrived Bush bashing
said by tapeloop  :If it weren't for the Supreme Court, Bush likely wouldn't even be in office now. False. An investigation of the Florida ballots confirms that had the US Supreme Court not intervened to overrule the Florida Supreme Court's illegal order to continue counting ballots, Bush would have won ANYWAY.
said by tapeloop :And Bush does appoint S.C. justices (i.e. Rehnquist's replacement). Bush has not appointed anyone to the USSC. This means Bush has, to date, had nothing to do with the US Supreme Court.
said by tapeloop :But true, he has nothing to do with the SCOTUS' current rulings. This is obvious, except to partisan liberals hell-bent on attacking Bush.
said by tapeloop :One could argue that he has influence over some of the conservative justices like Scalia, but that's more Cheney's bailiwick. Scalia can be friends with whoever he likes, that does not mean Cheney writes Scalia's opinions. 
said by IT Guy :No matter what you little Bush minions have to say is irrelevant to me. It's the same crap I hear spew out of your mouths everyday with your so-called legitimate media, Faux News brainwashing. To sum it up, you're just wasting your breath. Bush and his admin SHOULD have NOTHING to do with the S.C. But government is so crooked, that it isn't the way it works in practice. Of course every good nutjob has to discredit every voice or reason as an agent of some evil shadowy conspiracy, otherwise some common sense might leak into your thinking and throw your whole freakish funhouse-mirror worldview upside-down. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Kaltes
No matter what you little Bush minions have to say is irrelevant to me. It's the same crap I hear spew out of your mouths everyday with your so-called legitimate media, Faux News brainwashing. To sum it up, you're just wasting your breath. Bush and his admin SHOULD have NOTHING to do with the S.C. But government is so crooked, that it isn't the way it works in practice. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :#1. Bush has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court Wow Kaltes, switch to decaf, eh? 
If it weren't for the Supreme Court, Bush likely wouldn't even be in office now.
And Bush does appoint S.C. justices (i.e. Rehnquist's replacement).
But true, he has nothing to do with the SCOTUS' current rulings. One could argue that he has influence over some of the conservative justices like Scalia, but that's more Cheney's bailiwick. (quack )
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
boog
Premium
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH | reply to IT Guy
Re: Thats stupid..
I bet you also think the president can make more jobs around the country too! |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to IT Guy
moronic, contrived Bush bashing
said by IT Guy :Especially now that local municipalities looking to expand their property (and subsequently their tax base) can bull-doze your place down, if you don't want to sell it off. Thank GW for granting local politicians the right to invoke eminent domain and put their citizens out on their ass. #1. Bush has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court
#2. THE LIBERALS ON THE COURT are wholly responsible for "granting local politicians the right to invoke eminent domain and put their citizens out on their ass", EVERY CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE dissented from that opinion!
said by IT Guy :Cripes... It's all a matter of semantics with you people. Lighten up and pull your head out of the sand. The CURRENT administration let it go through. You lighten up and YOU pull your head out of the sand, and while you are at it go back to 2nd grade and learn how our federal government works. You must have missed school the day the teacher went over seperation of powers, checks and balances, stuff like that.
said by IT Guy :It's packed with conservatives and they are ruling the way the administration wants them to. Wrong and wrong. There are 4 liberals and 3 conservatives, with 2 swing votes. 'Packed with conservatives' my ass. Your ignorance of both basic civics as well as the most rudimentary info on a court you rant about in your quest to attack Bush is astounding. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs: | reply to boog
Re: Thats stupid..
Why would they want to? It's packed with conservatives and they are ruling the way the administration wants them to. The new bankruptcy laws are a good case-in-point. |
|
boog
Premium
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH | reply to IT Guy
so, the current administration can stop the supreme court? |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs: | reply to boog
Cripes... It's all a matter of semantics with you people. Lighten up and pull your head out of the sand. The CURRENT administration let it go through. |
|
boog
Premium
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH
| reply to IT Guy
Your off topic, and GW didn't grant anything in that. It was the supreme court, and how many supreme court judges had GW appointed? if you look here »www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bio···rent.pdf they were appointed by Regan, Ford, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Clinton, and if you look into their histories, they mostly lean to the liberal side. They are all old and out of touch in my opinion, just think how easy it is to get your grandpa or grandma scared/worked up over something that they don't understand....
If you don't want you local politicians to be able to bulldoze your house, you better participate in your local government! |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to snot on your life
Especially now that local municipalities looking to expand their property (and subsequently their tax base) can bull-doze your place down, if you don't want to sell it off. Thank GW for granting local politicians the right to invoke eminent domain and put their citizens out on their ass. |
|
lastdaysofthesupreme
| reply to Vamp
Waning influence...
The last days of the supreme court (notice the lower case for supreme court). I'm sure they know that ALL legal decisions won by the industry are part of a losing battle as broadband speeds get faster, and faster, and faster, and faster and the tactics of the movie industry get sleezier, and sleezier and sleezier... what next? they'll charge you money to watch a tailer or preview like PPV?!?!? WTF already...
You can't late term abort a broadband revolution!
What's that song, too much, too little, too late, you ain't never gonna get that genie back into the bottle again? |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| reply to Primis1
Re: Thats stupid..
said by Primis1 : quote:
The problem is that by ruling in this peculiar way, based on this slim argument of the "intent" in marketing, they've opened the door later for someone else to come back and say "...but you ruled against Grokster" in a situation that isn't relevant or related to "marketing intent". The argument will now become "But everyone KNOWS you can do this over it", and boom, suddenly everyone and everything is a culprit. And if anyone argues it they'll scream "OMG!!! GROSKTER PRECEDENT!! GROKSTER PRECEDENT!!" until they get their way.
You guys sometimes forgot, and initial intended precedent is rarely then defined or considered the same way later on. And this is precisely a case of where they'll be quite happy to get even just this, because they know they can twist it to how they want not too far down the road, and have their way. You are absolutely right. This is what Grokster and StreamCast tried to do using the Betamax ruling as a shield to protect their creation.
My opinion is, had Grokster and StreamCast not touted their products' ability to source and obtain copyrighted material and had instead only touted the legitimate and legal uses of its software, the SCOTUS verdict might have been completely different.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to PDXPLT
quote:
This was a 9-0 unanimous decision. It wasn't even close. And remember this wasn'y directed at the concept of p2p generally, only at the way Grokster and StreamCast was marketing it. Under the decision, if you have a p2p company that was actually doing something to discurage illegal use (the way, say, eBay polices its auctions against illegal activty), they would be OK.
I understand what you're saying regarding intent and just "how it was marketed". The claim being made here of "intent" is at best *very* suspect and flimsy.
The problem is that by ruling in this peculiar way, based on this slim argument of the "intent" in marketing, they've opened the door later for someone else to come back and say "...but you ruled against Grokster" in a situation that isn't relevant or related to "marketing intent". The argument will now become "But everyone KNOWS you can do this over it", and boom, suddenly everyone and everything is a culprit. And if anyone argues it they'll scream "OMG!!! GROSKTER PRECEDENT!! GROKSTER PRECEDENT!!" until they get their way.
You guys sometimes forgot, and initial intended precedent is rarely then defined or considered the same way later on. And this is precisely a case of where they'll be quite happy to get even just this, because they know they can twist it to how they want not too far down the road, and have their way. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 : 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). The getaway car analogy is way off.
The case wasn't about, say, Dell, who makes PC's that someone might use for copyright infringement (or alot of other illegal things). But Dell doesn't primarily market its products as devices to facilitate illegal activity.
The case was about Grokster and Streamcast, with their wink-wink, nudge-nudge, "uh, yea, I guess you can use this to exchange home videos with your friends, that's it, yea". For these guys, the reality is that their whole business model is based on facilitating illegal activity. Justice Souter summed it up, according to the NY Times article: quote:
"The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement"
It's the "active encouragement" of illegal activity that got them in trouble.
This was a 9-0 unanimous decision. It wasn't even close. And remember this wasn'y directed at the concept of p2p generally, only at the way Grokster and StreamCast was marketing it. Under the decision, if you have a p2p company that was actually doing something to discurage illegal use (the way, say, eBay polices its auctions against illegal activty), they would be OK.
I think the "drug paraphenalia" example is better than the "getaway car" one. Yea, bongs and hash pipes can be used with tobacco, but everyone knows that 99+% of their use is illegal, so they are outlawed on some localities. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to TScheisskopf
Right. Software writers dodged a bullet here -- the Supreme Court delivered a 9-0 decision where they weaseled out of confronting the issues head on (a SCOTUS specialty since 1789 or so). Much better than what I expected, a 5-4 decision gutting Betamax.
Basically this seems to stick with established law concerned vicarious liability. |
|
alllitigations
| reply to Vamp
Its about the money! You can sue for trivial stuff, you can sue for non-trivial stuff.. but ya know, in all reality, this nonsense will come back to bite the Bush administration more than passing new DMCA provisions secretly, or not so secretly in the NEW AND IMPROVED PATRIOT ACT-thebastages-! Contributory facilitation is now sue-able to the highest court in the land.God bless America. |
|
Class Clown
| reply to Kaltes
Re: assorted stupidity
Hey Kaltes,
Please do us all a favor n' tell us what you really think!
So far... I think I could read between your lines.. and I anticipate you are likely hitting the nail on the head using a mexican speed wrench.. or is that a wench?? I ferget... |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And are you that legal expert?? I am an IP attorney. I am by no means the last word on this subject, but I am waiting for the opinions of lawyers who are familiar with IP law to see where they come down in their analysis. I haven't finished reading the opinion. It is hard for me to read much of it without rolling my eyes and moving on to something else. I am going to have to force myself through it, of course, because I will need to know this case well for work, but I am very disappointed in the analysis thus far. When compared to the outstanding analysis in the trial court case, this just goes to show how the supreme court will radically alter the law merely to reach the result they want to reach in a particular case.
No one can dispute that Grokster is an enterprise founded on impropriety. The problem was, how do you punish them without also putting innovation itself in peril? You can't. You have to cause collateral damage if you want to nail Grokster.
My tentative:
It looks like the USSC went ahead with a annoyingly-ambiguous rule which replaced a clear, powerful rule handed down in the betamax case. The practical effect of this will be that EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURER OR SOFTWARE PROGRAMMER, will be hauled into court and hammered for years potentially by RIAA/MPAA cartel lawyers. This allows the copyright monopolists to squash innovation with litigation, EXACTLY what the pro-innovation types were afraid of. Getting bankrupted fighting off lawsuits that allege you were out to infringe all along, and spawning endless rigged and manipulated 'polls' and 'studies' that purport to prove that such and such device is primarily used for infringement.
I have little hope that my final conclusion will turn out any cheerier given the language I have read thus far.
edit: finished reading the case. it is as bad as I thought. clear rules established both in Sony and many other cases in regard to contributory infringement have been SKEWERED, and replaced with a strange, moronic rule that focuses on the INTENT of the defendant. Theoretically, as long as you hide your evil intentions well, never mentioning your love of infringement in internal memos, marketing, etc, you could get away with it. Of course regardless of intent, you WOULD BE SUED and hammered in court until you proved, probably after a trial, that you have no 'unlawful objective'. This is so ludicrously fact-sensitive that it allows the RIAA/MPAA to haul almosy anyone into court and subject them to a lengthy, expensive process, which would EASILY destroy any new upstart innovator. This is exactly what the betamax opinion tried to prevent. We have already had printer companies (lexmark) try to use the DMCA to hold a monopoly on ink cartridges, and that was before this case! Now there is the potential for things to get much worse.
The only silver lining is that IP lawyers are going to get a lot more work, so I will probably benefit financially from this ruling. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | reply to Kaltes
And are you that legal expert?? |
|
