fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Kaltes
Wow! I guess you told me..
It clear that you don't know either, since you had nothing to add!
It's really lame to post the "you don't know what you are talking about" if you, yourself, are not going to add anything, so I will leave it at that.
However, what I posted was nothing more than what they said, and I agree with them. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy  : Basically, it was stated that Betas intent was for personal use. The intent of the file sharing system was to transport data between users and has greater potential for abuse. "transport data between users" is also personal use.  whatever those people were trying to say, whatever point they were trying to get across, you clearly didn't get it.
said by fiberguy :So, I guess you are right, judges speaking on it are just a bunch of non-lawyers that don't know case law. Those people you supposedly saw on tv might know what they are talking about. You clearly do not. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to russotto
said by russotto :So how does this differ from existing law on vicarious infringement? You can't bring up Betamax in that one; Sony pre-dates that particular doctrine. Wrong, third party liability for infringement, which includes vicarious liability, predates Sony, so don't talk about shit you don't know, k thx. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner :Considering Souter is speaking for a UNIFIED Supreme Court of the United States on a case brought before it, sonny, I would say that does make it true. The supreme court decides the law, not the truth. I suppose you think if the supreme court said 2+2=5, that would be true as well?
said by NGOwner :That right there is the basis for SCOTUS vacating the lower court's ruling. Wrong. The reasoning is detailed later in the opinion where souter outlines 3 reasons he feels distinguish Grokster. None of those 3 reasons were relevant to the Sony analysis.
said by NGOwner :Sony never showed a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement, hence the ruling covering Sony's Betamax. Actually, Sony *DID* exactly that, and this opinion confirms it. Sony marketed "build a library" of copyrighted files, something which clearly encourages infringement. Souter lamely tries to claim this would 'not necessarily' be encouraging infringement, when in fact such a claim would have resulted in this court killing the betamax, and Sony as well.
said by NGOwner :Conversely, Grokster/Streamcast spoke almost exclusively of their products' capability of copyright infringement. You don't know that. You aren't familiar with Groksters marketing materials and internal memos, you are repeating what Souter says as if it were fact, when it is ONE MANS OPINION. The fact that the other 8 went along with it doesnt mean they agreed with every single statement, only the result.
said by NGOwner :Your opinion, despite your (presumed) credentials My credentials are made clear by my reasoning. Your lack of credentials are made clear by the fact that you can do nothing but regurgitate what Souter wrote. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to Kaltes
So how does this differ from existing law on vicarious infringement? You can't bring up Betamax in that one; Sony pre-dates that particular doctrine. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Kaltes
Once again it is pretty damn pointless for a lawyer who knows the case law and context that this new case fits in with a bunch of non-lawyers who never read Betamax, who never read Napster, who never read the excellent Grokster trial court opinion, etc.
You trying to say you are a lawyer or something?
Actually, regarding BetaMax, I was watching legal analysis review of the decision and there were laywers and ex-judges speaking about this in particular. Basically, it was stated that Betas intent was for personal use. The intent of the file sharing system was to transport data between users and has greater potential for abuse.
So, I guess you are right, judges speaking on it are just a bunch of non-lawyers that don't know case law. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :
said by NGOwner :Horseshit yourself. Just because Souter says it doesn't make it true.
Considering Souter is speaking for a UNIFIED Supreme Court of the United States on a case brought before it, sonny, I would say that does make it true. said by Kaltes :
said by NGOwner :This case fell squarely within Sony, and it could not have been error to decide it under Sony when the supreme court hasn't gotten around to inventing a new legal rule to decide this case with yet.
See above. In particular the quote: quote:
this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement.
That right there is the basis for SCOTUS vacating the lower court's ruling. Sony never showed a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement, hence the ruling covering Sony's Betamax. Conversely, Grokster/Streamcast spoke almost exclusively of their products' capability of copyright infringement. Your opinion, despite your (presumed) credentials, is that this is a bullsh1t decision. That's your right. Personally I think it was the right one. [NG]Owner --
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Affliction
said by Affliction :Are you all for putting up with spyware as long as you can get free music? or are you still against spyware? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're an idiot. You really REALLY loose credibility when the ONLY thing you can do is quote someone and say "you are an idiot"
Remember what ma' said? Don't have anytihng nice to say, SHUT THE F UP!
How many people here that are using p2p are actually only downloading royalty free music/movies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me? I use BitTorrent to download game patches and mods.
It's obvious you ignored my post so not much need to go further with you.. BUT, you said that "any piece of computer data, whether and application, movie... is software"
RIAA/MPAA doesn't care about MS or computer programs themselves. They represent the music and movie industry therefore the topic at hand is the MPAA/RIAA vs File Sharing.
Pulling the plug on file sharing and hurting game patches and mods isn't going to hurt that particualar area as a whole. People put up websites all the time to transfer this type of stuff all the timewithout problems.
Again, as I said, if the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people didn't use file sharing services to d/l copywritten material in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess now. |
|
Affliction
join:2004-02-19
Delta, BC
| reply to fiberguy
quote:
Ok, are you talking Software? Or music/movies? The RIAA/MPAA has nothing to do with "software"
Any piece of computer data, whether an application, a movie or a song, falls under the definition of the word software.
quote:
Why do people here, that so strongly are against spyware, adware, malware, and virusus, support these p2p sites in the first place?
Who here doesn't know that when you install Kazaa, for example, that at least 25 pieces of spyware are installed with the client? (That's right, that's what lavasoft is for )
So what is it the answer?
Are you all for putting up with spyware as long as you can get free music? or are you still against spyware?
You're an idiot.
quote:
How many people here that are using p2p are actually only downloading royalty free music/movies?
Me? I use BitTorrent to download game patches and mods. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to Kaltes
I see. Well rather than wait for Nina Tottenberg's recap this afternoon I'm just now printing out the 55-pg. opinion and dissent to pore over during lunch. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to tapeloop
said by tapeloop :Just curious...are YOU an IP lawyer Kaltes? Or any sort of attorney? Paralegal even? Yes I am an IP lawyer. I have been following this case since the day the district court issued its excellent opinion. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :said by NGOwner :Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this. Also, unlike me, you know nothing of vicarious and contributory infringement, which made up the core analysis of the Grokster case in the lower courts. Unless you are an IP lawyer, don't even TRY to argue about this case with me. You aren't qualified. Just curious...are YOU an IP lawyer Kaltes? Or any sort of attorney? Paralegal even?
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy : where do you come off saying that a substantial part of file sharing is non-infringing? If you knew the case law, you would know that 'substantial noninfringing uses' were not measured as a proportion of all use. In the betamax case, the device was saved without ANY evidence that ANY owner used it for noninfringing uses. The language is whether a device is CAPABLE of noninfringing uses, not what proportion those uses comprise of the whole!
Once again it is pretty damn pointless for a lawyer who knows the case law and context that this new case fits in with a bunch of non-lawyers who never read Betamax, who never read Napster, who never read the excellent Grokster trial court opinion, etc. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Kaltes
said by Kaltes :This is a dark day. Substantial non-infringing uses has evidently been destroyed. Substantial non-infringing uses? I hate to come off on the opposite side here because I know most people here support illegal file sharing, however, where do you come off saying that a substantial part of file sharing is non-infringing? I'd beg to differ with you that the over-whelming majority, and just a guess, but 90% of the file sharing is in fact copywritten materials. What you see as substantial is certainly your opinion, but I'd bet it's not fact. 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. I think the P2P community destroyed innovation in the first place by abusing copywritten material. I don't know about the mass here, but when I buy a CD or movie, I don't run to digitize it and put it out on a P2P file sharing service... news flash - MANY DID! You know, I agree that innovation is great, however, the fact still remains... these p2p services - starting with Napster - were in fact designed to transfer copywritten materials. If you think other wise, then you are simply looking the other way. And I agree, those bastards are simply abiding by the rule of law in this country, how dare they. 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. Ok, are you talking Software? Or music/movies? The RIAA/MPAA has nothing to do with "software" - if you want to trade software there certainly many p2p places that certainly do that legally and those sites do in fact take steps to insure that the materials are non-infringing. Let me also ask this - how many here has used p2p ONLY to download non-copywritten materian; NEVER HAVING DOWNLOADED ONE *SINGLE* PIECE OF COMERCIAL MATERIAL? .... I thought so. (Yea, I expect one or two to stand up and type the words, but even the few that actually did, still is faint to the mass that diddn't - so don't bother replying to that one) Ultiamtely, what I have a real problem with the tone of this thread is this... Why do people here, that so strongly are against spyware, adware, malware, and virusus, support these p2p sites in the first place? Who here doesn't know that when you install Kazaa, for example, that at least 25 pieces of spyware are installed with the client? (That's right, that's what lavasoft is for ) So what is it the answer? Are you all for putting up with spyware as long as you can get free music? or are you still against spyware? How many people here that are using p2p are actually only downloading royalty free music/movies? I thought we argued this case when Napster was shut down. People complained that they stole music because it was too expensive. No one wanted to pay $21.00 for an album just to get 1, 2. or 3 songs in the end. The compromise? online services would sell songs for .99 cents, some as low as .79 wich on a 14 song CD, that's just $11.00. When does this nonsense end? I am not a huge fan over the MPAA/RIAA in the way they want to CONTROL the content you purchase, but I CERTAINLY support their desire to stop people from stealing it/using it without paying for it. Here's an idea.... STOP SHARING COPYWRITTEN MUSIC and maybe the MPAA/RIAA would not be so strong about flagging digital content, protecting, and shutting down these services in the first place. Final thought? Funny, every bloody post seems to end with "I'm leaving the country".. yet you don't see anyone doing it. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner :Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this. Also, unlike me, you know nothing of vicarious and contributory infringement, which made up the core analysis of the Grokster case in the lower courts. Unless you are an IP lawyer, don't even TRY to argue about this case with me. You aren't qualified. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner :Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this. Horseshit yourself. Just because Souter says it doesn't make it true. This case fell squarely within Sony, and it could not have been error to decide it under Sony when the supreme court hasn't gotten around to inventing a new legal rule to decide this case with yet.
The USSC don't know much about, nor do they care much about, intellectual property law, which is why the American people get stuck with bullsh1t decisions like this one. The Betamax case was a good one, but now appears to be a fluke. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| reply to Kaltes
Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this.
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···-480.pdf
quote:
In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.
MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.
** Emphasis Added
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to Kaltes
In my opinion I do not see how this ruling being decided either way will change anything.The **AA's just possibly opened the biggest floodgate they could find against themselves.All they did.Just created a anti **AA blacklash that turned a ripple effect into a tidal wave. |
|
