dslreports logo
Hollywood wins piracy battle
Supreme court rules on last day
The Grokster verdict is in and hollywood has the victory over p2p it was seeking. The music industry can now sue services that facilitate file swapping. The decision was unanimous. If you need some background info, try this blog Corante. Expect dissection of this (and other) last minute verdicts here picker.typepad.com or scotusblog
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Vamp
5c077
Premium Member
join:2003-01-28
MD

Vamp

Premium Member

Thats stupid..

Maybe we should go after vehicle manufactures because they make vehicles that bank robbers get away in? Therefor they "facilitate" Crimes.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

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.

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes

Premium Member

No, it *IS* over

said by Transmaster:

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.
There will not be a trial. The dispute was a matter of LAW, and trials are for resolving FACTS. The facts are not disputed. The trial court will dispense with the case by issuing an order that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. the end.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: No, it *IS* over

said by Kaltes:

There will not be a trial. The dispute was a matter of LAW, and trials are for resolving FACTS. The facts are not disputed. The trial court will dispense with the case by issuing an order that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. the end.
I'm sorry, but the SC said there will be a trial:
»money.cnn.com/2005/06/27 ··· ndex.htm
But Monday's ruling by the nation's highest court does not end the battle. The Supreme Court order sends the case back for trial to the same lower court that had originally ruled in favor of Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the file-sharing services named in the case.
Hollywood now must prove in court that Grokster was founded with the purpose of enabling infringement, not just that that was just a byproduct. Hollywood may win, but it isn't a foregone conclusion.

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes

Premium Member

Re: No, it *IS* over

said by FFH5:

I'm sorry, but the SC said there will be a trial:
The supreme court didn't say that, the NEWS ARTICLE did. Big difference.

It is POSSIBLE that there would be a trial, if the new legal rule creates NEW issues of fact that must be resolved, but as far as the news articles reveal thus far, there would be no need for a trial.

Trials only take place when material facts are disputed, there have been no factual disputes in this case, only legal disputes. Those legal disputes have now been resolved.
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco to Vamp

Premium Member

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 .
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI

1 recommendation

Primis1

Member

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).

inciter
Noobie
Premium Member
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA

inciter

Premium Member

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.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

1 recommendation

PDXPLT to Primis1

Member

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.
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI

Primis1

Member

Re: Thats stupid..

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.
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS

NGOwner

Member

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
aeiouy
join:2004-08-05
Fort Worth, TX

aeiouy to Vamp

Member

to Vamp
This is a horrible slippery slope. It is going to be open-season on P2P software developers. First they will sue and take down the big ones, then they will threaten and run out the smaller time non-commercial players.

Eventually all P2P software will be outside the US and other countries where the MPAA/RIAA have a reach.

Finally, they will use this as an imeptus to finally push through their lobbying efforts, and get some real draconian legislation passed in order to fully control file-sharing and distribution on the internet for US citizens.

I would hope for a win in a court case myself. It is not clear to me a jury would find the defendants guilty of infringement. But regardless this has opened the door wide for the MPAA and RIAA to go after software developers of all sorts.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

1 recommendation

TScheisskopf to Vamp

Member

to Vamp
Another take by Matt Yglesias, who is no dummy:

I've been finding the press coverage of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in favor of copyright holders in the Grokster case to be shockingly unenlightening, but as I read Justice Souter's opinion (PDF) this may not be quite so bad as it seems. He upholds the old Sony rule that the mere fact that a technology has infringing uses is not grounds for holding its maker liable for infringement. He also seems to reject the plaintiffs' desire to transform "substantial non-infringing use" from a qualitative standard (are there non-trivial legal uses of the technology) to a quantitative one (is the technology, in fact, mostly used legally). Instead what I think he's saying is that Grokster and StreamCast can be held liable not for their technology, but for their marketing campaign which was allegedly geared toward advertising their products' infringing uses.

More: »yglesias.tpmcafe.com/sto ··· 5956/954

snot on your life
@nrockv01.md.comcast.

snot on your life

Anon

Re: Thats stupid..

did you ever have any doubt they would win?

Look at how they just ruled on the ability for one private organazation's ability to "Steal" someones property from them without (in my opinion) adequate compensation...

Say for example, I have a little place with easy access to the sea, and some large comercial company wants to put up a nice hotel there.... Think I'll get yearly payments on what I lost.... snot on your life...

IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium Member
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
Cisco ASA 5505
Cisco Meraki MX64

IT Guy

Premium Member

Re: Thats stupid..

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.

boog
Premium Member
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH

boog

Premium Member

Re: Thats stupid..

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/a ··· 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 Member
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM

1 recommendation

IT Guy

Premium Member

Re: Thats stupid..

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 Member
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH

boog

Premium Member

Re: Thats stupid..

so, the current administration can stop the supreme court?

IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium Member
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM

IT Guy

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH

boog

Premium Member

Re: Thats stupid..

I bet you also think the president can make more jobs around the country too!

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes to IT Guy

Premium Member

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.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Re: moronic, contrived Bush bashing

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 )

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes

Premium Member

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.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

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.

IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium Member
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
Cisco ASA 5505
Cisco Meraki MX64

IT Guy to Kaltes

Premium Member

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.

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes to TScheisskopf

Premium Member

to TScheisskopf

assorted stupidity

#1. Yglesias is a partisan liberal blogger isn't he? Wow, some credentials. I can see how that makes him qualified to render opinions on intellectual property law

#2. Yglesias grossly mistates the Sony rule, probably because Souter himself misstated it and Yglesias doesn't know any better.

#3. Non-lawyers can't understand a supreme court case that deals with a techical legal field like IP merely by reading the opinion. You would have to go read another dozen or so cases that form the backbone of copyright law BEFORE you could even begin to grasp how this case fits into the puzzle, let alone offer insightful conclusions about what this case does and does not mean.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: assorted stupidity

And are you that legal expert??

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

2 edits

2 recommendations

Kaltes

Premium Member

Re: assorted stupidity

said by FFH5:

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.

Class Clown
@nrockv01.md.comcast.

Class Clown

Anon

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...
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

russotto to TScheisskopf

Member

to TScheisskopf

Re: Thats stupid..

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
@nycmny.fios.verizon.

alllitigations to Vamp

Anon

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.

lastdaysofthesupreme
@nycmny.fios.verizon.

lastdaysofthesupreme to Vamp

Anon

to Vamp
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?

Pabl0
join:2004-08-11
Canada

Pabl0

Member

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
totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

joebear29

Member

Here is a better article

»www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· _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 Member
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA

AbBaZaBbA

Premium Member

okay

who owes me a fiver.... i've gotta check my im logs

lucky644
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04

lucky644

Premium Member

Canada

At least this won't affect Canada and/or Canadian software, I hope.

••••

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

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.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Re: Somewhat balanced

said by TechyDad:

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.
This would assume that the **AA's are actually open to retooling their business models in order to acheive such an end. Events thus far would not indicate that they would be.

graycorgi
Premium Member
join:2004-02-23

graycorgi

Premium Member

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?

•••••••••••

Kaltes
Premium Member
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Kaltes

Premium Member

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.

••••••••••••••••••••••

natedj
Elected
Premium Member
join:2001-06-06
Irmo, SC

1 edit

1 recommendation

natedj

Premium Member

Its a crying shame .....

Its a crying shame when big companies can file share and sell your private information i.e. address, email, annual income ...yaddy yadda. But they penalize the little man when he file share for no monetary gain.
I think we all need to get our private information copyrighted
joebear29
totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

joebear29

Member

Re: Its a crying shame .....

said by natedj:

Its a crying shame when big companies can file share and sell your private information i.e. address, email, annual income ...yaddy yadda. But they penalize the little man when he file share for no monetary gain.
I think we all need to get our private information copyrighted
What are you talking about? This is not about the "little man", this is about Grokster, a corporation, and it's liability for its file-trading software.

The liability of the Joe Filesharer was neither increased or decreased in this ruling.
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS

NGOwner

Member

Read The Full Verdict Here

Before you buy into the sound bytes, read the entire syllabus.

»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/ ··· -480.pdf

Read the source. Draw your own conclusions. Form your own opinions.

[NG]Owner

••••••

Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium Member
join:2000-09-20
Fort Worth, TX

Harddrive

Premium Member

Long gone are the glorious days of....

the original Napster and Scour. They are truly missed. If you never got to experience these original P2P apps, you missed out on the best days of instant file sharing.
el cid4
join:2002-08-12
Burbank, CA

el cid4

Member

Re: Long gone are the glorious days of....

yeah...there are singles i found on the original napster that i STILL cannot finfd to this day on other apps.
daniel042
join:2003-09-11

daniel042 to Harddrive

Member

to Harddrive
mama?

GetAgripOnReality
@taylor01.mi.comcast.

-1 recommendation

GetAgripOnReality

Anon

This ain't ROCKET Science !

Folks it's time to GET A GRIP ON REALITY !!! No one is going to allow Pirates to steal and not go to prison. Facilitating the theft and distribution of stolen goods is also a crime and all P2P facilitators should do long prison sentences and lose all personal and Biz assets derived from their criminal activity. You might as well accept the reality or book your room now at the Iron Bar Hotel.

•••
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA

1 recommendation

GhostDoggy

Member

Electricity, computers, hearing ...

All of these facilitate file swapping of music.

Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Glaice

Premium Member

Re: Electricity, computers, hearing ...

No feeding the **AA troll!

G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY

G_Poobah

Member

This doesn't change anything.

For the media companies that is..
They still don't get it. They are trying to use lawyers and laws to control the industry, instead of innovation and value.

First big problem: None of the file sharing companies are based in the US. Who the hell are they going to sue?

Second big problem: The cable companies are 'common carriers'. That means that they are NOT liable for information that passes over their network. It also means that they cannot be forced to filter/block addresses. Thus they cannot stop a consumer from downloading the software.

So, exactly what changes here? not much. It DOES mean that 'NAPSTER' (the original napster), could never exist. It does NOT mean that Grokster and it's ilk can't exist. It just means that Grokster can't advertise that their progam is used to download music/movies/etc.

It will all blow over. This is really very minor, since all the smart P2P companies are overseas, and bittorrent and the like NEVER advertised themselves as 'movie trading' service. Not to say the bastards won't go after bittorrent, but the lower courts would have to cite precedence (i.e. Bittorrent was NOT ADVERTISED as infringing), and throw the case out.

AnyMice
@cox.net

AnyMice

Anon

The Opinions of the Various Justices

Here
ditka_b
Premium Member
join:2001-10-05
Barrington, IL

ditka_b

Premium Member

Well ruling or not

This is a meaningless story. They can't and never will be able to stop sharing. They have tried for years and always end up with egg on their faces. If they take away the net you'll see hawking software and flicks on the street like in the east.
Worry only about getting caught uploading at this point lol.
I buy my dvds new(Then sell em used usually breaking even) and cd's(rarely any more since all I like has already been made) but I know if I wanted I could get it all online. They cant stop anything they can slow it but it comes firing back bigger than ever.
They should have just ignored it instead of making the kids that rip it all angry and more resolved. Will they ever learn? Doubt it.

BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Fairfield, CA

1 edit

BronsCon

Member

Filesharing is becoming legal. And quickly.

Perhaps not ALL file sharing services are being used legally and legitimately all the time. But I can guarantee one that is. It is called PeerImpact (currently in beta) and it is actually being promoted by the RIAA itself.

They're currently using a DRM crippled WMA format and selling songs iTunes style, but with a twist, they're using customer bandwidth BitTorrent style, and if your bandwidth is used to transfer a song, you get credit for it toward future downloads.

They're currently working on setting up to allow users to swap their own content, getting movies and other media on their network, and improving the services immensely. They are reading their forums for customer suggestions and implementing them whenever they can, which is extremely wonderful. I can personally attest to the fact that they do this, as two of my suggestions were implemented shortly after they were posted, with replies from a mod and a programmer in the forum i posted them in.

I suggest everyone go check it out, I can't really explain how it works as well as they do, and it really does work the way they say, I've tested it.

As a side not, yes, it is DRM crippled, but it's the loosest DRM I think I've seen anywhere. The only thing I haven't been able to do with it yet is burn the songs to a CD using anything other than WMP but I've played them in everything else and it would be trivial to convert them to another format, thus losing the DRM entirely.
peter90036
join:2005-03-08

peter90036

Member

cover teh hole

AAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW SH IIIIIIIIII TTTT !!!
SEEK COVER !!!!!!!!!!
WE GOING DOWN !!!!!!!!!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!
plugg mah butt im pooping mah pants
pkust
join:2001-08-09
Houston, TX

1 recommendation

pkust

Member

Ruling is a red herring

Worrying about Grokster et al getting sued for distributing copyrighted material only takes away from the real problem, which is the way that Hollywood and the music industry have twisted the principle of copyright way beyond anything resembling its original purpose.


The idea of copyrights was crafted to give creative people protection against others co-opting their work without just compensation. The earliest copyright statute, the Statute of Anne (1710), explicitly states this in its opening sentences:

"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:"

Travesties of law such as DMC and CTEA, which automatically extended for an additional 20 years all copyrights currently in place, allows Hollywood and the RIAA unwarranted power to control what artistic works may be made available to the public by locking all creative work up for nearly a century AFTER the original creator's death (post CTEA, copyrights are life of the author plus 70 years).


If copyrights were returned to their original purpose of protecting the capacity of artists to make a living from their creative genius, and not used as a lever for a corrupt and rapacious recording industry to pry still more dollars from the buying public, the legal issues raised by p2p and file-sharing programs would, I think, be moot.

pog4
Premium Member
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI

pog4

Premium Member

Usenet...

Usenet has become a "service that facilitates file swapping".

»www.newsadmin.com/top100msgs.asp
»www.newsadmin.com/top100 ··· ytes.asp

1) Look at the feed volumes, both message count and message size... it's abundantly clear that Usenet is used and abused for "file sharing".

2) Usenet providers can easily select which hierarchies of groups to carry. IOW, it's trivial for them to offer only text-based groups... and it would be far cheaper a service to run.

3) These days, it takes enterprise-class equipment and massive bandwidth to handle the volume of these binary groups. To me, that means providers that carry them don't just do so willy-nilly... it's an expensive, highly planned undertaking.

4) Not all ISP-run services market their Usenet feeds much, if at all... but there are many commercial services that use binary retention, completion, etc as major selling points.

Anyway, I think this current ruling makes it much easier for the "copyright cops" to tackle Usenet. I don't think it's a stretch for them to argue that Usenet providers are maintaining a "service that facilitates file swapping".
peter90036
join:2005-03-08

peter90036

Member

Re: Usenet...

in the top 10:
alt.binaries.erotic.senior-citizens

aww thats nasty
Acid98
join:2005-05-25
Fairton, NJ

Acid98 to pog4

Member

to pog4
There are those of us who will always be able to find and obtain what we want from the internet. The RIAA should only be concerned with the real pirates(Themsleves)
page: 1 · 2 · next