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."
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?
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
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/
"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.
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.
Last time i checked, p2p apps don't contain chemicals to make you want more p2p.
Unless you count porn.
- 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
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.
Having "under God" in the pledge hardly establishes a state religion, even if it is used in schools. Stop being a child/.
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.
I can somewhat see your point about tobacco companies, but I don't think the comparisson is accurate. Tobacco companies produce a product that is known to be hazardous to your health and they marketed the product to be used in a method that is hazardous. P2P vendors at least have an argument that their products are use neutral. The products can be used for good or bad, depending on the end user (sort of like the CD/DVD burners...I can use to save off my data or I can use it to copy the latest CD from a friend...the good/bad choice is mine). What would be interesting to see is how many legitimate files are traded via P2P services (definitely differentiating pay/non-pay legal usage).
As for product liability with tobacco vendors, I believe for the most part now that people are educated enough that they should be responsible for their own actions. I can't imagine that any relatively new smokers (within the last what, 15 years...sorry, don't know when all the warnings started coming out) aren't aware of the dangers related to smoking. These users should be aware of the hazards and they are responsible for the consequences.
Judical activism is OK when it helps your side and wrong with it helps the otherside.
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?
Whether a state religion is actually established or not doesn't matter. "under God" and "In God We Trust" all make the imply a patriarchal, religious government. Were I a female athiest, that'd piss me right off. As it is, I'm a male pagan. If it weren't for the overwhelmingly common conception of "God" as being Judeo-Christian, I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest.
How did this get modded informative?
The 9th's rulings stand up much better than average. They are in about 3rd place, possibly 4th, out of all the circuit courts. Considering that an exceptional amount of the 9th's rulings are in new areas, particularly technology, having the supremes agree 75 to 80% of the time for the last 10 years is a very good record.
The district court that covers Arkansas and some nearby states, on the other hand, has been overturned more than half the time, and on rulings that are in obvious disagreement with old, well established law. Given this contrast, I think I'll claim that Rush Limbaugh is a better pro soccer player than Pele, and see if I get modded +17.
Who is John Cabal?
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
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?
...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
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'
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?
Bullshit.
Guns are for killing. Maybe killing people, maybe killing animals. Killing anyway.
Those guns which aren't used for killing are used for such pleasures as holding up 7-11 stores, holding the upper hand in a fight, stealing, etc.
Have a look at the US - the most 'relaxed' gun laws around, and the highest incidence of violent crime around.
Remember: guns don't kill; people kill; people with GUNS.
Ok trollboy, I'll feed you...
Personally I like to use my guns for target practice, i.e. making holes in paper targets and then letting my friends (who are REALLY good) humiliate me because they shot a better score than I did. No killing involved, unless you're going to get pedantic and count the trees that were killed to make the paper for the target.
Believe it or not, the majority of gun owners are not raving psychos and criminals as you imply.
Mechanik
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.