gg5
join:2005-10-09
| reply to packetscan
Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P
You seem to think there is a bright-line division between software that "facilitates theft" and software that doesn't. My answer - to restate it in different terms - was that in regard to copyright infringement, there is no difference in principle between the various network programs that enable copyright infringement.
In regard to copyright infringement, the difference between Kazaa, bittorrent and FTP, for example, is only a matter or degree, not of prinicple. One happens to be used more for infringement, and another is used less for infringement. But the uses that are made of it once it leaves the author's computer are beyond his control. If legal liability were to be decided by a quantitative analysis of user behavior, then it is completely arbitrary in its effects on the authors, and no one would be safe writing any network-enabled software.
Your position is like saying that gun makers should be liable for illegal shootings, car makers for car homicides, etc.. Obviously only the actual actor should be held responsible, unless the item has no legal purpose at all. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | It's common sense for me.. |
|
Random Radical
@151.143.x.x | Common sense is remarkably uncommon in these litigious times. |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan  :It's common sense for me.. And that's the problem.
First of all, it could be argued that based on the content of your posts, you lack common sense. I say this not because I think you're a bad person or anything, but because you've failed to address gg5's points, and ended the argument with a point that says, for all practical purposes, "I'm right, but I cannot or don't need to explain why I'm right".
Secondly, common sense is knowing something without requiring any specialized knowledge to know it. This in turn reduces every decision made in the world to extreme opposites. But (good) decisions need to be based on very specialized knowledge.
For example, you could, using common sense, scoff at large truck owners and curse their evil machines for drinking up too much fuel and destroying the environment and praise the sweet, pleasant Ford Escape Hybrid owner for selecting a hybrid vehicle that is good for the environment. But if you had specialized knowledge, you may realize that the larger truck has a diesel engine, which in general, offers around 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. You could then, further using specialized knowledge, point out that although the diesel engine has better fuel economy, the hybrid and the diesel are being used for completely different applications, making it an apples to oranges comparison. Suddenly, a simple, black and white, common sense situation is far from simple.
For every 2-bit reporter or [disgust]blogger[/disgust] that says we need to make more of our decisions based on common sense, I say, "Get real". I say we need to make our decisions LESS on common sense and MORE on specialized knowledge.
The reason we have problems, whether they be at a national level or a commercial enterprise level, is that ignorant people are using common sense to make decisions that require specialized knowledge. Although their results are sometimes wacky and clunky, I still prefer the smartest people making them. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| What's the problem i have more common sense than others?
Well that's obvious isn't it..
Would i address gg5's questions? No
His questions are Baseless assumptions in an attack format.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
1 edit | Nothing personal intended! I was addressing the argument, not the person. I would not say you lack common sense or any other quality, only that your analysis of one issue was mistaken. I have been wrong on many occasions too.
Even in Grokster v. MGM, the Supreme Court decision was based on the conduct of the network operators, not merely the nature of the software. |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :What's the problem i have more common sense than others? Well that's obvious isn't it.. Not really. You don't support your statements with anything at all and refuse to elaborate on them. Honestly, you sound like a bigot with what you wrote.
But let me see if I can understand you... If you created some software that had all these bells and whistles to share anything and everything except copyrighted works AND later was found to be able to transfer copyrighted works, even after doing everything possible to keep it from happening, you should be held liable?? NOT the people illegally sharing and copying the copyrighted works?? |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | people keep telling me that:
"Support your statements"
Why not try to prove me wrong?
Because you can not.
Damn Trolls. |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI | said by packetscan :Damn Trolls. Common tactic. |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :people keep telling me that: "Support your statements" Why not try to prove me wrong? Because you can not. Damn Trolls. So, are you liable if you created a service that technically allowed copyrighted materials to be shared despite you doing everything possible to keep it from happening? This can't be too hard of a question.
Ok, to prove your mental incompetence, using your logic of making the devs liable for what others do, I hold you liable for posting on here and making me (and possibly others) irate and causing emotional distress. I'll have my attorney write up the papers and present them to you Monday so you can sign your assets over. Also, holding car mfrs liable for reckless drivers works to disprove you as well.
And before calling people Trolls you should check how long they've actually been around. I've been on DSLR 2yrs before you (2002), you only joined last year. And I'm only asking valid questions. You not wanting to answer them and making snide remarks makes you the troll. I guess you only know what you are, huh? 
PS, if you really want to know what an "attack" is here's a good example: "I would love for you to come down here and proceed to tell me that to me face so I can put a bullet between your eyes as you "force" your way into my home." (**This is only an example of an "attack" (aka personal attack) and is in no way meant nor provided as a threat or otherwise.) Now, the person you accused of attacking you came nowhere close to this. Are you really that paranoid? |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | blah blah blah |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | lol |
|
