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 ..."
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.
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.