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.
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
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.
Absolutely! The 9th circuit is indeed a disgrace. I mean when did Judicial legislation/judicial activism become ok. Judges are supposed to deal out the law as it stands, not create new ones with thier "interpretations" of it. Oh well, we know to expect another asinine decision will be forthcoming...
So many injustices..so little time..
"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.
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
Only on /. does this get modded Informative. I'm tired of people badmouthing the 9th circut. Out of them all, only the 9th really seems to believe in this thing called the "Constitution." For all the whining over things like the "under God" ruling, they held to their belief that gov't shouldn't interfere in personal affairs such as religion. I would argue that it isn't the 9th Circut smoking crack, but all the other courts.
#define DRM chmod 000
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
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.
It was put in during the Red Scare in the 1950's to differentiate us from those godless commies. If it was so easy to put it in, why are you people so opposed to removing it?
Black and grey are both shades of white.
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?
I don't use lunix, so I don't need to buy a license. However, I am interested in licensing your first-posting technology.
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?
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...
*free as in Beer
...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?
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.
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.
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.