Slashdot Mirror
Is The Net At Fault For Illegal Filesharing?
hbean writes: "Laywers for the file sharing programs Morpheus and Grokster are saying that if their client's programs are illegal for sharing copyrighted content, then so are the networks of ISPs that allow users to connect to each other -- check it out here. I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
The lawyers are not saying, "Blame these other parties too."
What they are saying is, "Blaming our clients for this is just as ridiculous as blamiong all these other parties would be."
Because there is substantial, non-infringing use of P2P file sharing, it is just as silly to sue the writer of the software as it would be to sue ISP's.
If you read the article, the EFF is involved in helping architect that defense. Everyone who reads Slashdot should know about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and what their role as "our lobbyist" is, just like everyone should read the article before posting a comment.
For those trying to get an informed opinion, here's the actual paragraph from the article:
:p
;)
"Lawyers for makers of the file-sharing applications Morpheus and Grokster say that, if their clients can be held responsible for illegal copies of music and motion pictures, then so too should companies such as Microsoft and AOL Time Warner, whose software and Internet connectivity are essential to building networks of file traders."
Notice any differences?
At any rate, this isn't an attempt to shut down the internet. It's a rhetorical question.. forcing people to ask questions about what is TRULY responsible for piracy. It's the age old gun cliche.. the gun isn't evil, it's the person holding it.
Bonus points to anyone who read the article, which by the pile of comments already posted, are few and far between.
If people can sue gun makers for people being killed with their products...
Shouldn't I be able to sue Microsoft for making an Operating System that allows me to pirate software?
Shouldn't I be able to sue AOL for allowing me to access the Internet?
Yet another example of people unable to make the leap from meat-space to cyberspace.
(I used a .gif from Amazon of a cover of a "for Dummies" book, modified it, and gave it to my dad for Christmas.)
This is not actually illegal. Copyright law only applies to publication or distribution, and showing something to a family member is not considered either of these. You can remix any song with any other song you'd like or make a poster from your favorite movie in the privacy of your own home. It's when you make it public even in the smallest way that you get in trouble.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Heise claims Fastrack looked Morpheus out on purpose. They have an article about it. babelfish can't be directly linked to translate it from german, they seem to check the reffer now.
...is that eventhogh the goverment doesnt like us the fact that it is very easy for me to get copyrighted data that even if i use the software to only downlode the data that i already bought becouse i cant find my origenal cd then im not breaking the law at all. only because they arent capebal of getting only the bad peopel that i have to suffer and im not doing anything rong.
Are you refering to the Marilyn Patel who was THE FIRST judge to rule that source code is speech (in Bernstein v DOJ) or the one that has given the RIAA three weeks to prove that they actually own the copyrights they claim to own? She is actually taking the misuse of copyright claims seriously, which is exactly correct. Napster isn't promoting "fair use", its promoting a popular uprising aimed at bucking an overbearing cartel.
Judge Patel is in fact one of the sharpest judges around on tech matters. If you don't believe it, go back and read her opinion in Bernstein.
The only fair criticism I can see against Patel is that her recent orders in Napster were too slow in coming. In the long run, that doesn't matter at all, and it hardly surprises anybody that our judicial system moves slowly sometimes.
No, K-Mart was sued because a) the clerk was 17, which is too young to sell a gun in Utah b) the buyer was schizophrenic, it's illegal to sell a gun to a schizophrenic in Utah, and c) the seller forgot to ask the buyer for ID, which again, is illegal.
They family wasn't just suing for anything. They sued because K-Mart illegally sold a gun.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
The Link and the interesting part --
A skeptical Hatch then turned to the Recording Industry Association of America president, Hilary Rosen, a surprise addition to the roster of witnesses. Wedging herself into a space next to MP3.com head Michael Robertson, whom the RIAA recently helped to sue, Rosen found herself subjected to the kind of puzzled questions about fair use -- a notorious legal morass -- that millions of music owners have been asking themselves for the last few months.
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and
hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
''Is it fair use to give the copy to my wife for her car?'' Hatch continued. ''Is it fair use for me to rip a CD? Is it fair use if (a computer network) decides for efficiency reasons that one copy is sufficient to serve for storage, instead
of keeping 200 separate copies, is that fair use?''
''None of these is fair use,'' Rosen eventually replied. She argued that musicians' willingness to ''tolerate'' people making copies was an instance of ''no good deed goes unpunished.''
Infuriate left and right