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 ..."
Is it legal to be allowed to own a weapon ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
And the highway system is responsible for all of those drunk driving deaths...
Sigh..
This made slashdot?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
Doubtful - not much money to be had there...
...ISP's (typically) use cable and phone lines. Sue the physical providers for making bandwidth available to the ISP in the form of copper lines to the house. Sue the people who developed TCP/IP and make it possible for computers to transmit information against the laws of the land. Sue the people who haven't sued all these people before, because their inaction caused such economic losses.
Really. It's a big world out there, and occasionally people have to own up to their own actions.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
> I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing
.. I'm not American. :)
.gif from Amazon of a cover of a "for Dummies" book, modified it, and gave it to my dad for Christmas.) I mean, things are screwed up right now, because the laws are made to claim damages from a centralized few victims with money, not to hold a public at large accountable for their behaviour.
/i/ wonder is when we'll start making laws that reflect the behaviour of society again, not laws that reflect the greed of an elite few.
Like the drug war! If you arrested everyone in the US who had committed a drug crime (including smalltime possession and use, the drug equiv of sharing a few Metallica files), you'd arrest an amount of people that equals the population of Texas, Arkensaw and Colorado. (Sorry if I misspelled any of those
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up. To say nothing of 'casual' copyright infringement (I used a
What
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
I think this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument, where one side reduces the other side's argument to something patently ridiculous, to prove that it's wrong. With the general level of tech clue most judges seem to have nowadays (example: Marilyn Patel), people had better watch out, or the courts might actually end up outlawing (any useful form of) the Internet!
Just my $0.01
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
Well, they did (remember with Napster?) and all the people here who were insisting that the people involved in illegal sharing should be blamed started shrieking that the Gestapo was coming after innocent Napster users. Same thing when ISPs started booting abusers.
Anyway, IANAL, blah blah blah, but I still grasp the difference between an ISP or OS maker and a company whose core product is designed and marketed for facilitating copyright violation and whose customers are using it 99.9% for illegal sharing. I don't see a judge buying that line of reasoning.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
of course they are responsible...
and so is microsoft for selling me the OS that made it possible
and gateway for my keyboard
digital for my monitor
that criminal who wrote the rfc for tcp/ip
intel for the CPU
the state of california for allowing some miscreant to supply me power to run my computer
microsoft again for the mouse
my boss for not watching me closely enough at work
and my wife is responsible because she helped me get up today on time for work, so I am now awake and can click on the file to share
whatever
Common carriers are not responsible for what is carried. Period.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
But then who would protect you? Your legislators?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
What needs to be done here is a concerted legal and public relations attack on the MPAA and the RIAA, hell pull it under the guise of civil liberties, it has been found in US courts even Judges, Prosecutors (personally) and the Courts themselves are liable for Civil Damages, IF a civil liberty has been violated.
Wrap the MPAA and the RIAA up in this start distributing a client (allowning only downloads of your own music or non copyrighted material) and lie in wait, when the MPAA or RIAA sets out to bust your chops you got em, VERY got em.
The other is ad and canvassing campaigns, get local printers to volunteer services for print (for yes advertising) and start distributing leaflets and taking signatures.
If anyone has any CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on direct concepts of being targeted by the MPAA send them to my email address. There is a limit to their power, companies are easy to go after, but if they even in one case blatantly violate the civil rights of one citizen its much easier to demonize them as well as litigate against them.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Since the 'original' Napster case, I've maintained that an application like Napster is fundamentally no different than an anonymous FTP server. Following that logic, and the logic presented above, FTP servers should all be illegal, as they can be used illegally. Some lawyers are simply thieves.
Maybe I misread something in the article, but I get the impression the lawyers are not trying to blame anything on anyone.
This doesn't sound like an argument, it's a counterargument, they're trying to disprove the argument of the media companies by reduction to the absurd (excuse the mistranslated latin).
They're saying that if you're going to blame them, you might as well follow the logical fallacy to the extreme and blame the world that allows this to happen, including the media companies that are suing since they own ISPs. The plaintiffs don't get to choose up to which point their blame-the-tools logic applies.
Since that doesn't make sense, you have to face the facts that they are not responsible for the actions of individual users.
They're not perpetuating the insanity. They're demonstrating why it is insane.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
i think the problem with going after individual people who are sharing files is a twofold:
on one hand there are just plain too many of them and going after a few wont make a big difference, unless they turn it into a huge publicity issue and try to ruin said scapegoat's life
which brings us to the second issue... you end up turning said person into a martyr and get alot of bad publicity, from people who might otherwise be more sympathetic for your cause
either way going after small individuals is more trouble than it's worth.. they are the lesser evil
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
What does Kazaa and Morpheus do?
Allow you to do a search over various hosts until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What does google and yahoo do?
Allow you to do a search ( from their listing... hmmmm like napster? ) until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What's the difference?
Maybe i should become a lawyer, This type of question was the first thing i asked myself when the whole napster thing came out.
Here are a few of the similaries i came up with....
Copiers - Can be used to copy content on mass scales, but arent outlawed
VCRs- Also can be used to copy stuff, and are for the most part used for 'techincally illegal' purposed, but also arent outlawed
Video Cameras - Possible to copy content, but again not outlawed
Still cameras - Not very conventient, but also a means of copying intelectual material
Tape Recorders - Also can be used to copy content, but again no regulations
Pen and paper - Very inconvenient but still possible to copy with, but of course, not outlawed
And some other examples....
You can traffic trugs on the highway, should they be outlawed as well?
Gloves can be used to assist in stealing things without being caught. Should they be outlawed?
Knives can kill someone almost as easily as guns can. Should they to be forbidden?
You can never outlaw everything capable of commiting crimes. And i dont see how the courts have ANY legal backing at all to shut down services such as Napster and Kazaa etc.... They dont force people to commit crimes, they dont assist people in commiting crimes, they make a service available that is very open and leave it up to the users to use it responsibaly. Maybe the RIAA should sue wal mart for displaying their music in a way that makes it *possible* to steal.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
I realize this isn't in the spirit of capitalisim of which I'm a strong supporter of, but why don't the people and yes, I mean you, me and our mothers, just do away with the RIAA and MPAA?
/.
Think about it, it used to be artistry was done for the love of art. If you got paid for it, it's because someone else's love of your art. Plays, concerts, paintings ( images ). If the artists and the public agreed to remove the greedy middleman, then the problem would be resolved. Easier said than done, I know.
So let people distribute all media types free and clear? It exposes people to more art, all types of art. Through the p2p file sharing I've been exposed to many types of art I wouldn't have been previously exposed to. Some I liked, some I didn't. If I liked it enough, I become a fan and may wish to pay for it. Whether it be to attend a musical concert, go see/buy a movie, or wish to attend an art museum to see good art in real life.
The sooner all people accept the fact that the sooner all information in any form is free and available to the public, the sooner everyone wins. ( Except for of course the RIAA & MPAA. )
-TheRowk
Yes, I've given up on ever scoring above a 0 on
You can change without improving, but you can't improve without changing. -Quote stolen from I don't remember who
Is The Net At Fault For Illegal Filesharing?
In a word: YES!
The internet is "disruptive technology". Previously publishers added economic value to the stream of commerce that flows from authors and artists to consumers. Suddenly, nearly all creative works can be represented in a digital form (usually with higher quality to boot), reproduced at virtually no cost, and distributed at virtually no cost.
The entire business model of most publishers is now non-value added waste. The market knows it, the people know it, and the publishers even know it.
Unfortunately, our form of government is not geared to be responsive to the public or the market. Free markets and the public demand the elimination of waste, but our form of government is optimized to achieve a different goal: to create a regulatory paradigm where Congress grants regulatory favors to those who are able to contribute the funds needed to assure the reelection of the people in the system.
Our legislators have gone through a vigorous natural selection process that ensures they truly believe it is important to ignore the wishes of the people, indeed even the rights of the people, so as to perpetuate the unnatural power base of a cartel created not by competition, but by regulation even after the very service that it provides can be accomplished on demand by any 10 year old with no out of pocket expense.
The internet was designed precisely to acheive what it does acheive: a radically better way to distribute files. People should see this for what it is and also dispel any feelings of guilt they have for using it to its fullest capabilities to destroy those industries that survive only by misuse of government to protect revenue streams based on turning waste into value based on corrupt regulation.
In fact, EVEN IF a few poor starving millionare artists have to suffer unfairly to achieve it, I recommend that people feel no guilt about sharing files instead of feeding the cartels. It is far better to kill a little skin burning off the leach than to allow it to feed off of you unchecked.
There are two different points in your "banning weapons" statement, and I think you are grouping them together improperly.
Banning contact weapons is silly. Just about anything can be made into a contact weapon, starting with the pencil I'm not writing this with, to the laptop I am writing this with, to the car I drove this morning.
But contact weapons usually include an element of personal danger on the user. If you get close enough to hit me with a laptop, I can hit you back.
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.) Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too, it makes unarmed law-abiding citizens less safe. Ranged weapons are equalizers only in cases where all parties have them. This is part of why shall-issue concealed-carry laws are so nice.
But it isn't really correct, personally, to group contact weapons and ranged weapons together, from a practical standpoint. From a U.S. Constitutional standpoint, sure.
But "as a means of reigning in violence" contact weapons and ranged weapons are different matters.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I think it's brilliant.
They're pointing out to the judge that both systems (the internet and the Morpheus system running on the net) allow anonymous, back & forth sharing of files with absolutely no control over IP at any point in the transactions. This point along with the fact that it's the action in using such a tool that's illegal (not the tool itself) are both arguments that, despite reversals in the DeCSS & Napster cases, still have not received proper attention from the court or responses from the plaintiffs. If people can use VCRs to copy TV shows or CD-R drives to copy CDs and it's OK, why can't I download music I already own from Morpheus? I've done it dozens of times -- it's easier than ripping it from CD if I only want to listen to a song or two from something I own. Not even Morpheus is aware of the extent or lack thereof of a legal use for their product. As long as one exists and appears to be being exercised though, they should be allowed to remain in business.
WHY would Morpheus/Gnutella/Grokster/etc or Napster be illegal? The companies do nothing to promote violations of the law other than provide a forum in which you can share data. The net does the same thing -- people provide HTML & other sorts of files & people download them. People do all sorts of illegal things on the net -- scam others, put up child porno, etc, and they should be pursued. We shouldn't shut down the net -- of course not. If I did any of those things I'd be breaking the law, just as I would be if I pirated music over the net. Yet with the net it's me that's performing an illegal act and on Morpheus it's the program's (and the company's) fault. Why the difference? If one is illegal then the other must be, right? Maybe my argument's simplistic, I don't know. But I think they have a point.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Lets not get into a dsicussion on culpable liability - you have no concept of what you are talking about and are just blowing shit out of your arse - cigarettes don't buy themselves or light themselves YOU DO.
The product is legal and as in todays advertising market NO ONE can claim to be ignoarant of the consequences of the product.
Yes im a smoker and i spent 5 years working for a large tobacco company, i understand the issues in ways your feeble mind could never do.
tobacco companies dont normally advocate smoking to children but it does happen and no one can deny it - but using that as a justification for fucked up parental duties (looking after your kids and educating them properly) is insulting and plain stupid.
And if you want further proof of the hypocracy that smoking is do some investigation on how much the governments earn from excises and taxes on tobacco and then you might realise the myth of smoking costs to medicine and other crap youre fed.
And in closing - i would like to start a campaign against companys that produce Internet Connections and advocate them to morons like you - if you're attitude isnt a health hazard i dont know what is.
BTW I AM BEING CONDESCENDING BUT IS SUSPECT I AM A SHITLOAD OLDER AND MORE EXPERIENCED IN THE WORLD THAN YOU ARE AND SO I CAN BE.. and i know that 'zitty' is not a word used by people over the age of 15 so it pegs you right slap bang in the right demographic that im talking about.
In other words you're an Instant Asshole - Just add Internet.