Slashdot Mirror
Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case
CrystalFalcon writes "Wired News reports that a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments in a landmark case involving Grokster and Morpheus that could decide the future of peer-to-peer services, and may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior." The appeal against last April's Grokster/Morpheus court win will take a while to shake out, though: "At Tuesday's hearing, each side will have 30 minutes to present its arguments and answer questions from the three judges. The judges will likely take several months to issue an opinion on the matter."
Let's round up not just P2P companies, but the gun makers as well, not to mention knife makers (stabbing), shoe makers (for jaywalking), God (for making rocks that other people used to beat heads in), and pretty much everyone who ever created a product that was ever used in a crime, ever. Idiots.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
lets hope everything turns out ok!
Oooh... the 9th Circuit. We're pretty much GUARANTEED a good time with this case. The Ninth is well known to contain the most crackpot judges of any circuit in the country.
may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior
I mean after all look at the tabacco companies... they did not force people to smoke yet they are held responsible for the people that smoke.
"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." -Harlan Ellison
So this is a question for all those IAAL types out there.
If the judges take 60 minutes to hear arguments from plaintiff and defendant, why do they take months to render a verdict?
Is this the only case the judges are considering, or do they have a bunch of different cases ongoing at the same time.
If only one, they must be doing a lot of research in the interim.
How can providers be at fault? One can use any communications medium for piracy: The mail system, telephone companies, FTP, the web, carrier pidgeon - the list is virtually endless. Is the postal system at fault for transporting CDs with pirated software?
the reasoning in the lower-court case is so solid (well reasoned, backed by precedent) that i'd be surprised if the opinion is reversed. either way, i'm sure the RIAA will attempt to take the case all the way to the supreme court.
smd4985
We probably shouldn't cheer any victory in the appeals court. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned court ever, and the Supreme Court will probably overturn the decision made here. Of course, they might overturn it in the P2P services' favor if the 9th Circuit rules against them. Either way, we should be prepared.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
they are definately whack.. who pays for licences nowandays anyways?
Technology stays a step ahead of the music industries ability to track down people who are downloading and/or distributing copyrighted content throughout the Internet. So, either find a way to communicate, more effectively, that people who make music have to get paid, or, price the products so that it is just not worth it to download what is quite often not-so-great recordings. Have there been experiments to see if you can sell enough CD's at, say, $10 instead of $18 to make up for the price drop?
Happy Trails,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
What was presented that makes this case different? Just because its on the internet? There seems to be this overwheleming need to make laws to cover things that already exisit just because it is now online. We have too many laws at it is.
-M
"The services are profiting to the tune of millions of dollars from music that is written by songwriters who are not getting a dime from the use of their music on these services," said Carey Ramos, a lawyer representing songwriters and music publishers
First of all, people who did nothing and make money off of recording artists is the entire foundation of the RIAA... lets face it. Second of all, don't these people understand a few key things. 1) There are things besides music being traded on these networks 2) Even if people are making money off of it, that has nothing to do with the law. The fact of the matter is that if a copyrighted song is illegally sent over a P2P network, the network has no control over it. It's the user who's breaking the law. Lets face it, the major P2P networks don't advocate breaking the law. They provide a simple medium for trading files over the internet, which is a great thing for young song writers looking to put their name out there, the trading of software that's legal, free, shareware, open, etc... The porn industry has figured out that you can even combat the P2P networks in a positive way. They fill up P2P networks with movie clips and pictures with URLs all over them, so you can say, "Hey! That's some good pr0n! I'm going to that site!" (or so I hear). There are so many wonderful uses for this medium. Why can't these people realize that.
1.) The previous ruling can be upheld and P2P Technology will continue to cause innovation in the technological field.
2.) The previous ruling will be upheld and future P2P Technology will focus anonymity which results in more innovation in the technological field.
While there are other details that will be decided, the overall fate of P2P will not be sealed by either ruling made by this court. P2P itself is here to stay, simply because it is so vast and uncontrollable.
Jamon
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
I know what they could do, get Hutton to do it. After several months they will decide that any form of peer to peer is illegal and that it was unfair that the RIAA was done for price-fixing!
What steps are you taking in anticipation?
that could decide the future of peer-to-peer services ...in which country? This will affect only the USA I (dare to) assume.
Whatever... Whatever.. I never liked those US movies...
"The Betamax was a product that allowed consumers to make copies. The defendants operate services which facilitate both unauthorized distribution as well as copying, and that continuing network is fundamentally different"
it's possible to distribute copyrighted material using a VCR. it's also possible to do this with blank cds. but with p2p programs, the problem is that the vast majority of users use it for illegal reasons.
Personally, I don't see the difference at all. VCRs are products that allow you both legally and illegally distribute and copy copyrighted information. Ditto for these P2P networks. VCRs are legal. P2P networks are _____? Doesn't seem to hard to me.
then most weapons manufacturers must be considered to be criminal organisations.
Hello, gun-control laws.
Over 90 years and counting !
I am writing this as a proposal for the geeks on this board who would like to take action against the **AA's of the world, yet don't want to be just another martyr. What I propose is a new kind of file sharing system that removes the need for the **AA's altogether. Although the system I envision will work nicely with music, it should translate fairly readily with books, movies, and other creative content as well. Done properly, it could be the 'killer app' Napster aspired to be and stand as incontrovertible proof that F/OSS systems pay off in ways other systems cannot. Please bear with me, because this will not be trite post.
1. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
We tried to be nice about it. We really did. We downloaded songs, books, and movies with a 'try before you buy' attitude. Buying what we liked, and declining what we didn't. But they didn't like that idea. Nooooo. God forbid we make an informed purchasing decision. They called us thieves, destroyed our centralized system, fought to strip us of our rights, crap flooded our networks, and took us to court. Well in the words of Bugs Bunny, 'Of course you realize this means war." So we've taken up the fight with new distributed systems, encryption, and plausible deniability. However, in our grand fight of "Us vs. Them" we've casually forgotten one of the 'Us'es. The artists, the creators, the people who produce what we download in the first place. Each and every one of our new distributed systems is just a more elaborate version of the one that came before. What we need is a system that gives the creators an incentive to share their works. We can continue to build better mice while they build better mousetraps, or we can start thinking of a ways to include the artists in our game plan. Kazaa, in a quest for legitimacy, is trying to do this. They are retrofitting a system onto a network that was designed with a single minded devotion to withstanding legal attacks. It wasn't meant to be what they want it to be and, as such, it is failing. As long as we exclude artists, they will continue to view us as the enemy. The entertainment industry is trying to pervert copyright through force of software, rather than law now. With DRM, the tables are turned. They're building mice and we're building mousetraps. Instead of focusing our efforts on breaking those systems, we should instead rectify those perversions by creating a system in the original spirit of copyright. Create a system that provides incentive to artists without stepping on the rights of the public. In doing so, we can create an open system in which the 'Them's can't compete, because the 'Them's aren't competitive anymore. We need the artists. What we don't need is the middleman.
2. Foundation for a new system.
Our new system has to perform three essential functions to supplant our much hated middlemen. Distribution, Marketing, Profit! By replacing the middleman's functionality, we can remove him from the process entirely. We are one third of the way there already. It's pretty obvious that we have distribution down to a science. Step two and three need more work.
3. Marketing
We need a way to 'spread the word' about content creators. I am convinced, as are a handful of others, that collaborative filtering is the way to go. A couple of notable mentions are iRate and AudioScrobbler. If you haven't used one of these systems, allow me to briefly describe iRate. When you launch the program, it downloads 20 'seed' songs. Songs that are popular across various groups of users. You rate these songs on a scale of 1 to 10 and it then tries to guess what songs you are likely to enjoy by comparing your ratings to the ratings of other users. It then sends you a few more songs, rinse, repeat. The longer you use it, the more accurate its guessing becomes. This is far superior
- Used phone to plan crime --> phone companies and phone makers held responsible.
- Threatened bank w/ note about fake bomb --> makers of pencil, paper, and luggage held responsible.
- Used car in getaway --> automaker, oil company held responsible.
- Used gun in shootout w/ police --> gun and ammo maker held responsible. [not far from there now]
Of course, if those businesses were "criminal", then the businesses that sell them tools and supplies are also criminal. [apply recursively]Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I find it interesting that the consensus here is that software companies should not be held responsible for the illegal use of their software, yet apparently, the same is not true of hardware manufacturers. For example gun makers...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
It's an online rehash of the same old tired argument, only now it has an online twist. The **IA organizations are probably banking on the court to not be able to tell that this is the case.
So last time people -- you can't fault the tool and probably not even the toolmaker because, in essence, the tool is always innocent. If the user of the tool uses it in a way to unlawfully gain from others or to cause damage to others, then there's a user problem that needs correcting.
If the **IA is allowed to get away with this, then you must logically ban every other product on the planet that could possibly be misused, such as cars, guns, steak knives, VCR's, etc, etc, etc.
Nothing to see here people, move along....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
not that i hope this happens, but i'd be interested to see what exactly could be done about P2P networks if they were ruled to be illegal. it would set a precedent for closing down the highway system - think of how it facilitates the distribution of pirate materials. never underestimate the bandwidth of a 1975 Dodge Dart full of DVDs.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
If the court holds technology companies liable for how their customers use the tech companies' products, then couldn't the same liability apply to gun manufacturers?
Let's say that the court rules against the tech companies in this case. This would establish a precedent. By citing this precedent, couldn't anyone bring a lawsuit against gun manufacturers for being liable for the death of certain individuals killed by their products?
In their appeal, movie-studio and recording-industry plaintiffs argued that if the court does not reverse Wilson's ruling, "it will gravely threaten any possibility for meaningful copyright protection in the digital era."
I don't think "meaningful" is what they're after. How about "totalitarian" or "draconian" for adjectives, guys? You've far exceeded the realm of just "meaningful." I don't think suing 12-year-olds and senior citizens has a whole lot to do with meaning.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
How did you come to that conclusion? Are you using the total number of cases overturned or are you using the % of cases overturned?
The 9th circuit has one of the highest, if not the highest, case loads of any court in the country.
I'm not sure how much the future of P2P hinges on a US court decision... there are people in other countries using P2P too you know.
Even if it became outright illegal to do anything with P2P in the US, it wouldn't mean the end of P2P networks.
Maybe I could start a spam free ISP, and offer refunds to any customer who gets spam durring a month, then sue other carriers for allowing the illegal spam to go over their network to me. hmmmm yes....this could work...you think darl might be interested in funding this?
Considering this article is about your "right" to illegally download music, movies, and software, I'd say no one.
If this case is to decide whether or not a company can be held responsible for the end user's of their products, then Microsoft better hope that Grokster and Morpheus win this case! Just look at the damages caused by Microsoft driven viruses (virii?). That could cost them millions!
Gee, why not make the power companies responsible for their customers' behavior, too? (I guess there could be an exemption in cases where the power was used to charge a battery that was later used for bad behavior.) What about when people conspire to commit a crime while talking over the phone? Is the phone co. supposed to listen in and report everybody? Or is it just another utility?
I don't use lunix, so I don't need to buy a license. However, I am interested in licensing your first-posting technology.
We must have some separation here. Crimes committed using automatic weapons differ greatly from pirated movies/music being transferred via P2P. Stop using that comparison. I understand the argument but the crimes produce MUCH different results thus should probably be treated a bit differently.
"and may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior."
What if this happens and Microsoft becomes liable for all of those viruses written using their compilers? Think of all the damage the Office macro viruses cause!
there's plenty of people who want to make gun makers liable. It's been tried before and failed. When you consider your opponent morrally wrong just about any avenue's open to attack.
BTW, where are the software companies in all this? Shouldn't groups like Real, Apple, and even ATI (all of who make technologies that could concievable fall under the headder of 'being used for copyright infringement') be worried too. I don't think these companies are gonna get sued (they can claim plenty of ligit uses) but they might seem some rather unpleasant regulation come out of this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How would a lawsuit against a few companies decide the future of P2P services? By its very nature, P2P is not dependent on a company to exist. Shaman networks, Grokster, and limewire could go out of business tomorrow and the networks would still be up.
The problem with this weak argument is that screwdrivers and VCRs are not specifically used for doing illegal things 95% of the time. Please save your breath about how you use P2P do download legitimate software and blaw, blaw, blaw. You know that's a load of shit. P2P is used to download copyrighted music and other media, and weak arguments thieves use will not convince any court of law. Just wait until it's your IP (if you ever produce anything other than empty Dew bottles), then twist it around.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
(wont somebody please think of the judges?)
Maybe someone could explain this to me...
What is the difference between recording a song off the radio and giving your friend the tape and recording the song to your harddrive?
is it just the sheer numbers at which someone could copy. Because i didnt think there was a copyright problem with recording off the radio. but i could be wrong.
What I don't get is why this upsets people so much? They don't get this upset when people blow their own heads off on TV and it shows the body, the pool of blood and the hole in the head...
Isn't that WORSE than a breast?
There is going to be very little evidence to submit, contrary to some of the popular posts above. An appeals court does not validate the evidence or the warrents gained from claims on the evidence, the only thing they do is validate the constitutionality of the case and the constitutionality of the evidence.
In other words, they make a judgement if any of our rights under the constitution have been infringed upon.
Only in extrodrionary circumstances will the court look at evidence and make warrented assertions on it. I am by no means a legal scholar, so someone please correct me, but I do not remember this happening in any largely publisized case recently.
What will go down is something along the lines of the RIAA (or what ever legal firm is handling it) saying " violates the artist fundemental right to the pursuit of happiness. This is demonstrated in our orignal evidence we provided in x, y, z exhibits." Right of happiness a fundemental right normally associated with making money; which is also where "copy right" rights are derrived from.
The p2p people will come back and say "Actually, the artists right to pursuit of happiness is not infringed, as they are already making exhoberant amount of money, and p2p doesn't impact this at all, as is demonstrated in evidence a, b, c." The p2p people will probably also try, ablit unsuccessfully, to throw in there that the RIAA and their cronies are using unconstitutional scare tatics, but that won't be listened to and will eventualy result in one of the largest cases of violation of rights ever seen in resent times (I'm talking about the RIAA police).
Somone with more knowledge on the subject please feel free to correct me, I only have several years of debate team expierence and a few law classes, not too much, but enough to give my 2 cents.
- Simrook
'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
Please do not refer to Bush and conversative in the same sentance. He isn't a conservative, he may talk like he is but his actions show otherwise...
...action lawsuit against all of the baby Bells insinuating their inherent responsibility for any telephone frauds/scams that were perpetrated through their services.
Dirty colluding phone companies!
Loading...
I also forgot to add that the appeals court will first look at if there was anything wrong with the lower court's orignal decision, which will then lead to the consideration of constitutionality of the said decisions.
The appeals court only exists to correct constitutionaly-minded mistakes made by lower court judges, not as another place to hear the trial.
My 3 cents.
- Simrook
'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
*free as in Beer
"The services are profiting to the tune of millions of dollars from music that is written by songwriters who are not getting a dime from the use of their music on these services," said Carey Ramos, a lawyer representing songwriters and music publishers in the appeal.
Is it just me or is this not the basis for iTunes and pretty much every other online music store operating at the moment?
Interestingly enough, ALL technology companies should NOT want this ruling to be on the side of content companies such as RIAA and MPAA among others. If in fact this will decide how tech companies will be held liable for ANY and ALL activity using their products imagine what that would mean for companies whose abuses by script kiddies using watered down linux distros or even M$ whose enemies use their own OS to write viruses. In other words, will M$ be responsible to illegal P2P file swapping just because P2P software is compatible, interoperable, or even in the case of MSN send files/photos actually circumvent such measures? What about the content companies that have interests in both sides of the dispute, SONY for example?
... there is nothing that has not already been thought
Yet another litigious waste of society's resources.
And after this can there be a trial to see if the government should be liable for letting corporations produce their mind tickleing adverts or for turning gay joe into a psycho with all the war training? This is just ridiculous. Whooo will win? good will or green will? ooo its a close one. We are only nature, we need to work with it, or have it work on us.
See his history. He's not too bad ... certainly a better one than the so called GNAA 'trolls' and associated crapflooders.
...is that if you create a medium for freely distributing information, will then most of it be copyrighted and without permission? The evidence so far suggests yes. Hell I can tell you that most floppys or CD-ROMs I ever saw were used for exactly the same, it's nothing that was "invented" by the Internet.
But I really don't see what the alternative is. You let all information pass, then deal with the violations. Or do I have to verify with the master database that my digicam picture isn't the copyrighted work of someone else, including bit changed to fool an MD5 sum, or a resampled image to fool fuzzy logic, before I can send it to a friend? That kind of system can never work. Ever.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Isn't P2P Person-to-Person, NOT Peer-to-Peer?
Peer-to-Peer is a type of networking that does not require a domain controller. If the government makes Peer-to-Peer illegal, a lot of small business networks are screwed.
AAAAA! No more sharing the cable modem? My roommates and I may kill each other.
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
This upsets me every time I think about it! Here are some parallels we're not likely to hear about:
Comparing copyright violation to gun problems and other violent crime, American education problems, economic problems, and environmental problems is like comparing a noisy neighbor to a breaking-and-entering. It's pointless to start at the bottom level of importance, because that would assume that more important circumstances would be treated either the same or even harsher.
You can shoot somebody for breaking and entering if you are protecting yourself or your family from bodily harm. But you can't shoot a kid for rolling your house. Saying that tech companies can be held responsible for the copyright violation of their customers, but can't hold a gun company responsible for a 6 six year old shooting another 6 year old with their product.... Well, that's like saying you can shoot a kid rolling your house, but not somebody that broke in and is raping your wife.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
IMHO, P2P has become very unreliable and not worth the risk. That being said though, the P2P apps in and of themselves aren't the problems here. If people choose to use them to subvert copyright (even if copyright law is badly broken), it's the people who are wrong, not the program. If KaZaa and the others downloaded stuff illegally based on what it though I wanted, then and only then is the program at fault, but otherwise, it's a tool, nothing more.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Argueably, I use p2p ilegally. But laws do not equal rightness, or goodness. I think that p2p is one of those things that come along, and tell us that our standards are now wrong, and we must spend some time in deep thought about the issues it brings up. While not recompensating the artists is wrong, and there is no way to see it otherwise, it also provides a valueable tool for record companies, what do people really want, when given a choice.
Yes, p2p gives people a choice, beyond the "free or paid" one that is the issue here. When I download a lot of files from my p2p network of choice, I delete the ones that do not do it for me, and keep the ones I actually like. And because of the lack of the limiting price barrier, I have access to millions of artists that I would never be able to sample in the real (non-digital) world, where pricing (restrictive or no) bars me from sampleing much of anything. Sure, the radio allows you to sample music, but only what "they", the record companies, radio stations, and such, allow us to hear. They allow us to here this because some guy/gal at a desk decided by statistical analysis that this is what "we" want.
So with my now close-to-infinite choice, I am exposed to things that I never would have heard before. At no personal risk, finanical risk, or any other form of risk. Meaning that my choice in music has expanded greatly. For example, since I got to college, and hopped from my crappy 56k modem, to a hot university connection, I have deverged from popular modern rock, and started to listen to electronica, jazz, classic rock, and all forms of things that are hard to ever be exposed to IRL.
At this point this does not expand to giving money to the people who deserve it. And this is the problem.
So say I download 100 songs from my p2p of choice, I probably will delete 75 of them, them being utter crap, in my eyes. But the remaining 25 are good enough to listen too. Now I might go download as many songs by these artists as I can. But in the end, I'll usually find myself in my local record store, buying albums from the artists who deserve my music, these are usualy obscure artists, though, or artists that are not contained within the catagory of mass-appeal. Mass-appeal is geared exclusivly to the lowest common denominator, a catagory that no person should be content to live in, because at that level your a tool for the marketing flaks to make money.
I just got hooked on old (dead) femal Jazz vocalists, I have no qualms about pirating this music. The artist gets no recompensation for their efforts, all the money goes to the label. there is no way that any person will convince me of the wrongness of this action. I also have nothing against pirating Elvis mp3s.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Hey, I ran my KaZaa on Microsoft Windows. Is Microsoft now responsible since they didn't include code in Windows (other than a lot of BSOD's) to prevent me?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Self Defense.
Ok this one could involve killing, but only in retaliation.
If it involves killing in retaliation, you're doing it wrong. Self-defense involves attempting to stop an attack. If you then hold the perpetrator you've crossed the line into citizen's arrest - part of law enforcement. If you hunt him down and shoot him after he runs, or shoot him once he's stopped attacking and threatening, you've crossed another line into vigilantism.
Usually you can stop an attack by drawing and aiming the gun. (Crooks are often stupid but most aren't SO stupid as to keep attacking once they're on the wrong end of a gun. But some are.)
If you DO have to shoot, you shoot to stop the attack - which means to disable him in the most effective way - which usually means shooting for core body (sometimes head) rather than trying to wing him. (Indeed, shooting to wing him is evidence that you WEREN'T in immediate fear for life or limb, which means you WEREN'T justified in using deadly force.) Once the attack is stopped, you are generally NO LONGER JUSTIFIED in firing again (YMMV depending on jurisdiction).
If you shot at him and hit him badly enough to stop an ongoing attack, maybe one in four he dies as a result. This is an unfortunate side effect. But HE's the one who chose to put both your lives at risk - you were just keeping yours intact, which is your right.
Unfortunately, human bodies are sturdy, so disabling them in mid-attack often means doing enough damage to bring on a total system crash. "Non-lethal" (now renamed "less-lethal") weapons have been tried, but so far they also remain "less effective" at the primary purpose. Until until someone invents phasers with a "stun" setting, a pistol remains the most effective way to stop an ongoing attack.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ramos said the two cases can't be compared.
Of course not. He'd lose!
"The Betamax was a product that allowed consumers to make copies," he said. "The defendants operate services which facilitate both unauthorized distribution as well as copying, and that continuing network is fundamentally different from the sale of a consumer electronics product, which was the subject of the Betamax case."
Seems to me that:
1: Sony directly made money selling Betamax units at (initially) $1300USD. P2P is available for the cost of a free download. Who is directly making money?
2: Sony continued to make money selling blank Betamax tapes. In fact, the more you used your Betamax, the more tapes Sony sold.
IANAL, however, all things considered, I would think Sony's case was far weaker than this one -- and they won. Of course, considering the overall (truly rotten) record of the 9th Circuit Court, their decision will probably have to be reversed by SCOTUS.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Is a Government responsible for the actions of every single person within its countries borders?
No.
So why should P2P companies be liable for the actions of every single one of their users on their networks?
They provide:
Recording studios and equipment
Initial cash for distribution
Advertising
Manufacturing
etc. etc.
Now, I'm not saying that they aren't a bunch of bastards who rip off artists and try and restrict technology, but they DO do a lot.
Nope, read it closely, directly from RIAA.org...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Post a Base-64 encoded 3 second clip of some AC/DC song on one of the judges websites.. provided one has one.. and comments are publically viewable.
The 9th's rulings stand up much better than average.
What utter and absolute BS!
The 9th is by far the most reversed court in the country, with more than 85% of their reviewed decisions overturned by SCOTUS.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And even when they do reach a decision, what significance is that?
I guess I just don't understand the American legal system, but wont you just get an appeal against the appeal. And whoever loses that will just appeal.
Legal cases should be like well formed programs, they should _terminate_. In America it seems you can just drag any case out and out until someone runs out of money.
Not only does this weaken justice it weakens the peoples respect for the Law, because they know anything can be bought, and money not facts decide the outcome.
If companies are responsible for their customers ... then most weapons manufacturers must be considered to be criminal organisations.
Since most guns are NOT used in crime, and most of the guns that ARE used in crime are NOT purchased by the crook from gun companies or through normal and legal distribution channels, your statement is incorrect.
B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So should the **AA be suing Dell?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sounds good to me! It's about time copyright protection fell be the wayside and society was allowed to progress.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is totally the wrong kind of thinking. I sell you a product, and now I'm liable for what you do with it?
What ever happened to having to deal with the consequences of the choices you make? The whole thing makes me sick!
That being said however, if the court does settle in this direction, I wonder if this applies in all cases or just P2P. (If in all cases, how many of us will you find in the line to sue good ol' MicroSoft for all the virus infested email their customers are responsible for sending?)
This post is not meant to be a troll. I'm just broadening the scope of how the resulting judgement of this case could affect us in the US.
Should Microsoft then be held liable for all the email worms running about? They were made with MS's software. That's several billion dollars in fines right there.
--
http://cheeser.blog-city.com
If the court holds technology companies liable for how their customers use the tech companies' products, then couldn't the same liability apply to gun manufacturers?
That works both ways:
"If the court holds gun manufacturers liable for how their customers use the tech companies' products, then couldn't the same liability apply to tech companies?"
Yep.
Think about than the next time you're considering suporting an organization that supports such litigation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Head over to the Artists Against the RIAA site and get music that is legal to share. Then flood the p2p with it. Or support the EFF and other organizations that fight the bull going on here. Prove with the one thing it takes, money, that there are legal uses.
Every time you download a song from a legit source, tell two friends, and tell them to tell two more. Get information out using p2p about how to use this to get legal, free music. And if you like what you've found, buy CD's. Pay money to the artists directly. We don't mind, really.
We don't neet ranting, ravin, or hotheaded reactions. We need people to tell other poeple who tell other people where to find the free music, how to support the artists, and how not to be sheep.
Or you can just be a sheep and rant and rave till they own you. Your choice of course.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Oh my GOD! I can't believe this was modded to a 5?!?!!? Are you joking me? All someone needs are a couple of numbers here and there and everyone thinks it's gospel. "According to dozens of legal scholars and former judicial clerks, the 9th Circuit has more than earned its reputation as a "runaway court." It has by far the highest overrule record since the federal judiciary was expanded in 1978. In one year, the 1996-1997 session, the Supreme Court reversed 27 of the 28 cases it considered from the 9th Circuit." Quoted from here Maybe I had it right and should be modded back up.
gun companies held responsible for crimes committed by their customers
If you'd said "gun companies held responsible for crimes committed using their products" you'd have been dead on.
But PLEASE let's not talk about "their customers" in this context.
- MOST of the guns legally obtained from gun companies and the legal distribution network are NEVER used for crime.
- MOST of the guns used in crime have been transferred at least once through an illegal channel (typically stolen and/or bought on the black market - often from a cop who lifted it from an evidence locker), so the misuser is NOT a customer of the gun manufacturer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
damn you all and your "Redundant" it's not my fault we posted at the same time.
whores!
Three words: "substantial non-infringing uses". Something that Betamax has, and Kazaa et al have yet to demonstrate.
--
E_NOSIG
Just because a law is broken, does not mean one should idly follow it, espeically if it conflicts with your own personaly princibles, (or those of whatever Faith you follow). In fact, if the LDS Church did not itself outlaw polygamy in the 1890's, I would still vigousrly practice it. No threat of jail time would keep me from praticing something I believe in my heart is a true and correct princible. Same goes with P2P's and Copyright. Nothing the RIAA, or the Courts do will keep me from using P2P's as I see fit. Jail me, fine me, whatever, I will not change.
The RECORD companies provide these services. The RIAA is a lobby group. They are the legal arm of the record company that looks at the legal environment of the music industry. They are responsible for responding to 'threats' such as p2p and copyright infringement.
See recent cases involving GTA and Natural Born Killers...
I live in the boonies. Bears have been on my deck just outside the bedroom sliding glass door. My neighbor half a mile away has had mountain lions on his deck.
Now I don't know about you, but if that bear had come thru the glass door, I'd like to have some means of encouraging him to go elsewhere. I have a shotgun for that purpose, loaded with bird shot, buckshot, and slugs.
Furthermore, there have been idiots come around, lookie loos who no one knows, pretty certain they are looking for houses to plunder. It would take the cops half an hour to get here.
I like my gun. I may be in the bears' and lions' natural home, and I will not bother them as long as they stay away from this particular 1600 sq ft that it MY home.
Infuriate left and right
...only the legality. Which may have NOTHING to do with the why P2P is actually used. Hopefully, they will stop the damn RIAA viglantes!!!!
RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION DAMMIT!!
If P2P makers are liable, then so is SCO. They own the rights to Unix, right? Doesn't UUCP allow two peers to share files?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Several points to think about, When was the last time some one was blugoned to death with a gun... why sue the gun manfacutres? Seems like the amo manufactures should be the ones to blame. On the comparison to smokeing mentioned earlier stateing that tobaco companies were held responsible for their product and having a reply of something like " p2p does not put adictive things in their product except for maby porn" I would have to say nicoteen is not physicaly adictive unless the chemicals in your body are present that make your feel bad, I would bring up the point that nicoteen by itself is not bad at all, its only when a person CHOOSES to introduce it into his or her body it that it becomes bad and then their body is the one hurting itself, the cigaret companies could easily claim that they have a legimate product since cigarets make great fuses for smoke grenades and other such items. Any how we should consider all the posibilities of the case and review president and on top of that use common sense and logic to break everything down to the lowest common denominator before we start to argue. We should also establish a common moral rule set and debate rule set before we argue a political point, other wise we will get no where fast.
Faith_Healer -- The antethsis to almost everything, and the worlds worst speller.
Your subject line brings up an interesting point. You cannot deny that BitTorrent is used for legally downloading ISOs. It's saved Mandrake a lot of money. I'm not saying BitTorrent isn't used for copyright violation; I'm saying it has both good and bad uses, and the exact same technology is used in either case.
If you think P2P should be banned, I'd be very interested to your draft of such a law.
We have a constitutional right to freedom of press. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press. Banning any communication tool abridges the freedom of the press. "P2P" (which is difficult to define anyway) is a communication tool. So Congress cannot ban it.
QED.
Wouldn?t holding software manufactures responsible for the use of their products mean holding M$ (their web server), Apache, and all other web-server manufactures responsible for the posting of child porn, and copyrighted files? If so, imagine the impact this case could have on the Internet.
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
"The 9th is by far the most reversed court in the country"
I did a little digging, trying to find actual counts of reviewed cases and cases overturned. and found facts such as "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was overturned 75% percent of the time in 2002. The 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th Circuit Courts were overturned 100% of the time." You don't see the Republicans complaining about the Appeals Court That Always Veers to the Right.
But it's (IMO) if different courts lean one way or another -- people in different regions have different ideas, and it's hardly shocking that the people in California would be more progressive than the people in Virginia.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I think bittorrent is one of the few P2P programs I've seen that actually seems to have a legitimate use... Specifically for distributing Linux Iso's and other data that is large but freely available from sources that do not have $$$$ to host it. The only datahosting company I'm aware of charges about $1 a Gig down at individual rates, somewhat less for bulk - but it would still add up quick for most people.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Nope. They can appeal en banc, or to the Supreme Court. Neither attempt guarantees anything since the Supreme Court can hear pretty much whatever it wants, and only hears about 80 cases per year out of the thousands of rulings which are even remotely subject to review by the Court. And en banc, well, that would require a petition successfully indicating that the majority is so wrong that they need to have 7 more (in the 9th Cir.) and the original 3 hear it again. Good luck.
Statistically, once it's decided it's all but final. There is not such a wide disparity of legal thought on the subject for the Court to merit a grant of cert.
I want to make a distinction between having a potential legitimate use and being primarily used legitimately at present. Commerce on the internet was once primarily porn - should it have therefore been banned? Right now, some networks are used mostly for mass copyright infringement. But in the future, say if magnatune.com and similar prosper, those same networks might make it much easier for small artists to succeed. So banning even a very specific technology based on its current primary use is very dangerous.
The minute I heard about the half time peep show (probably the last adult in america to hear about it) I kazaa-lite "superbowl janet jackson" and get video and pics.
The lovely Nipple ornament shows uncovered the nipple itself (does NOT COVER IT UP AS SOME SAID) and the pin going through the pierced nipple is plainy visable (taken off an HDTV feed undoubtedly).
The sun's rays are represented by curved lines radiating from the circle surrounding the nipple. It looks like it is is made all of one metal - maybe silver alloy.
This particular piece of pierced nipple jewelry is not only beautiful and sexy; but bound to be popular in the comming months.
Why take away rights we already have, to save "a couple" lives? Ok, ok, now before you go ranting about how much of an insensitive bastard I am, think about it in a completely un-biased way. So we've saved a couple of lives. This is good. We've also taken away a basic American right of bearing arms. From EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES. Think ratios. When you were in elementary school, didn't you get mad at the kids who got the toys taken away from EVERYONE just because he/she did something wrong? Didn't you dispise him/her because of that, just because THEY messed up doesn't mean YOU should have to suffer, right?
Same damn thing. Doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the people who get killed by guns. I just don't want my guns taken away because other people kill.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
THAT is not a pasty...
I've never been more happy to be wrong.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.