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...
"Next case"
"MPAA & RIAA vs. the Internet"
"Is the defendent ready?"
"011011001010111110010100110100...."
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
...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.
that gun makers are responsible for murders.
Sad part is, the US legal system seems to agree.
> 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"
This is slightly off the topic of whether ISPs are to blame, but on the topic of Morpheus and their legal defenses:
Morpheus is down at the moment. When you try to connect, an error box pops up saying. "Your version of Morpheus is too old to connect to the network. Please download a new version at www.musiccity.com."
This is apparently a programming glitch caused overnight by developers -- there's no new version. It is interesting, however, because one of MusicCity's main defenses against being shut down was that they can't turn off the clients because they're fully distributed and aren't under central control.
This proves otherwise. I predict a court order will follow shortly and Morpheus will be gone.
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...
Lawyers for Morpheus have filed a lawsuit against God for ceating people who use software that uses the Internet that transfers data which was created by people who then sold it to the RIAA who are suing the aforementioned lawyers (for Morpheus) for violating their trademarks by transferring music that they have copyrighted ...
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
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.
Common carriers are not responsible for what is carried. Period.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Does this mean we can file a lawsuit against lawyers who allow themselves to be hired to conduct frivolous or harassing lawsuits for allowing themselves to be used to conduct frivolous or harassing lawsuits, instead of the people hiring the lawyers?
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.
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........
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
was going to submit this as an ask slashdot, but I said forget it.
When do I own a packet?
After I request it?
When the media it travels down is owned by me?
When it hits my computer and the TCP/IP stack does something with it?
When I sign my service agreement?
I guess RIAA thinks they always own the packet.
For about the last year I've been sharing my network with my neighbors, we all own our houses, and have given each other "right of way" to run cat5 stapled to the fence into each others houses. What started out as a simple 1 wire connection has grown to over 24 pairs of copper (i.e. 6 lines)
Each neighbor prepays 6 months in advanced, 10 dollars a month. With this money i've managed to get the bandwidth up to 1.5down and 512up. Their kids can download on napster all day long and it still wont lag my gaming connection. Not only do I share an internet connection with them, but my fileserver as well. We have a central repository for music, a phpnuke based site for updates on the network status.
Our equipment is pretty nice too, everyone has intel pro100 management cards. Our main nat server used to be a linkcyst router, but it has evolved into a k62-300 running bbiagent. (nifty little firewall on disk, bbiagent.net)
So the question of when do I own the packet comes up again.
We don't have a classC subnet, we're all using nat on the 192.168.x.x range. I thought that range was set aside as a non routable "private" network. Private as in mine, err I should say our co-op. It doesn't belong nor resemble our providers network in any way shape or form. We maintain it, upgrade it, support it, ect.
Take for example, the DSL I use now. It runs on POTS telephone service, which has not seen any signifigant change since Alexander Bell said "hello" 100 years ago. Basically whenever you make a phone call, the line between you and the person on the other end is a complete circuit. The best analogy I can make is this would be like taking a trip from LA to Chicago, with all the freeways empty except for your car during the duration of your trip. It's a complete waste of resources.
This is really turning into a long rant.
I just don't see RIAAs justification for eradicating Napster from my network.. If they want to control what kind of network I have at home, they can run the cable, and buy my hardware. Hunting down people that just want to share an internet connection is bullshit (pardon my french) and is just another way of deflecting from the REAL problem which is people are starting to wake up to the fact that what they have percieved for years as good music from the record industry is not the truth. I think it's about time people stopped accepting what the RIAA try and shleff off as good music and start demanding that they stop with the britney spears, backstreet boys and all the other crap they try and tell us is music, instead of taking it out on the customers that underwrite their business.
(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)
Have it your way, I'm suing every artists and their managers and their record label, that has it's files shared online, willingly or not, for not protecting their property the right way, thus devaluating the price of my CDs that I can't resale because everybody made cheap copies and nobody wants them anymore.
:)
Hey.. that doesn't sound as stupid as I thought... any pro bono lawyers? MAKE MONEY FAST!
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
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
How many people have been convicted using the offending software?
In order to be a den of thieves, you must have thief. If I own a dance club and you bust 2 people a week for breaking the law (selling drugs) in my restroom. Well at that point yes as a business/service I am failing at maintaining proper control. Simply stating that people sell drugs in my bathroom and "everyone" is doing it should not get me in any trouble. If these services are full of people committing crimes start nailing them and then shut the service down. How can a service/company possibly defend themselves if no crimes have BEEN PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW!
This defense seems lame but it is even more lame to think of being brought on charges with NO FELONIES on the books. If 99% of the people use this service illegally this should be easy to accomplish. Then and only then can you attack the business. If we allow companies to be shut down without prior reason we will live in a much different society.
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?
In a confrontation with Orrin Hatch, one of the authors of the DMCA, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA said it was illegal to copy your own CD for the car, or your wife, or backup. Mr. Hatch corrected her. She was not amused. These clowns want pay per view on EVERYTHING; they have even attacked libraries.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Yep. Dig this ad run by the Libertarian Party parodying the ridiculous recent ads equating drug use with terrorism. It ran full page in the Washington Post & USA Today (!) today. Right to the point.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
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