page: 1 · 2  |
 
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD | Thats stupid.. Maybe we should go after vehicle manufactures because they make vehicles that bank robbers get away in? Therefor they "facilitate" Crimes.
--
foamy | I'm psycho | |
|  | 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| 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.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
| | | 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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. | |
| | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| 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/technol···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.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No, it *IS* over said by TK Junk Mail : 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. | |
| | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| 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
| 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
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
| 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.
--
Playing Table Tennisis not a matter of life or Death, It's much more important than that. | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 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
| 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
 ·LINGO
| 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. | |
| | aeiouy
join:2004-08-05
Fort Worth, TX
| 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
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| 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/story/2005/···5956/954 | |
| | | 
snot on your life
| 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
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
·Comcast
| 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
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH
| 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/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
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | 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
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH | Re: Thats stupid.. so, the current administration can stop the supreme court? | |
| | | | | | | |
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | 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 | 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
| 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
Light, sweet triceratops.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| 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  )
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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
Light, sweet triceratops.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| 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. | |
| | | | | |
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
·Comcast
| 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
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs: | Re: assorted stupidity And are you that legal expert?? | |
| | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
edit:
June 27th, @01:33PM
| Re: assorted stupidity said by TK Junk Mail :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
| 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
Collegeville, PA
| 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
| 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
| 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? | |
| 
pablo
Proud Owner Of The Cornballer
join:2004-08-11
Kanata, ON | 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
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
edit:
June 27th, @10:56AM
| Re: Tomorrows News. said by pablo :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, ...) This makes providers of file-trading services liable, not ISPs. It is actually clear about that point.
Read this article, it gives more information:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html | |
| | |
inciter
Noobie
Premium
join:2000-08-30
Rohnert Park, CA
| Re: Tomorrows News. said by joebear29 :said by pablo :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, ...) This makes providers of file-trading services liable, not ISPs. It is actually clear about that point. Read this article, it gives more information: » www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html Correct
We all know Kazzaz and other p2p programs are used for Piracy more than legit trading.
So what would this ruling do about usenet? Will Newsbin pro be classified with the same bundles as other p2ps? Should be interesting to hear. Usenet not being a software platform
Should be okay right? But the software used to pull files from it fall under this ruling correct?
--
Playing Table Tennisis not a matter of life or Death, It's much more important than that. | |
| | | |
pablo
Proud Owner Of The Cornballer
join:2004-08-11
Kanata, ON | Re: Tomorrows News. Look at me not reading all the the facts.
My bad. | |
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Here is a better article »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_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. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Long Beach, CA | okay who owes me a fiver.... i've gotta check my im logs | |
| 
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04 | Canada At least this won't affect Canada and/or Canadian software, I hope. | |
| | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | Re: Canada With the Canadian DMCA now that's apparently just passed, you're not far off from it really. Just a couple court challenges away from the exact same spot. | |
| | | Affliction
join:2004-02-19
Delta, BC | Re: Canada With the Canadian DMCA now that's apparently just passed, you're not far off from it really.
C-39 isn't anywhere near passing. They'll probably vote on it in the fall, and it's unlikely the NDP will support it. | |
| | | |
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04 | It won't pass, we already pay a crapload of taxes on blank media etc. | |
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| 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.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| |
tapeloop
Light, sweet triceratops.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Somewhat balanced said by Jason Levine :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. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| 
Tsume
BOBBARR2008 .COM
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL
·ViaTalk
·Cox HSI
| 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. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| 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. | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
natedj
Elected
Premium
join:2001-06-06
Columbia, SC
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
edit:
June 27th, @11:37AM
| 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
--
Good judgement comes with experience...Experience comes after bad judgements | |
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| 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
·LINGO
| Read The Full Verdict Here Before you buy into the sound bytes, read the entire syllabus.
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···-480.pdf
Read the source. Draw your own conclusions. Form your own opinions.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
|
|
