Slashdot Mirror
Grokster/Morpheus Hearing Recap
TrentC writes "An article in The Mercury News reports that Senior Judge John T. Noonan, hearing arguments in the Morpheus/Grokster case (yes, it's still going!), scolded one of the attorneys for the recording industry for 'using abusive language' in referring to P2P networks as 'trafficking in pirated goods'. Noonan also questioned, in response to a claim that a study showed that 90% of the 750 million files shared on Morpheus was illegally distributed files, if the other 10% -- consisting of public-domain works, recordings of public performances and works where the copyright holders have granted permission -- consisted of enough non-infringing use to meet the criteria set forth in the famous Betamax decision. Maybe 2004 will be 'The Year The Courts Get It Right'?" We mentioned this hearing a few days ago. The EFF has audio of the hearing and case documents available. Since this case will likely decide the general legality of P2P services, it could be quite important.
If the courts do get it right, you can be sure the legislature will come along and fuck it back up again. Gay marriage will be just one of the 'activist' court decisions that will get neutered.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402050 05057966
Worst
Looks like a skeptical 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel pressed the lawyers to defend their contention that file-sharing services should be stripped of the protections afforded technological innovation by the U.S. Supreme Court
"Judge Sidney R. Thomas, [is] regarded as among the most technologically astute of the 9th Circuit judges"
I have an idea. Well, I kinda stole it from something I read at Operation Clambake. Many of Scientology's "secret" documents are now available to anyone for free, because they have been subpoenaed during a lawsuit.
:)
So... perhaps one could run a filesharing operation based on the fact that documents presented as evidence in court become a matter of public record? Just get the files you were allegedly sharing to be part of the discovery, and bingo! Anyone in the world can download them!
This of course has the advantage that the courts can't shut it down or even declare it illegal...
These sigs are more interesting tha
I hope that the courts just let it go. And even if they do stop every single p2p network out there, someone else will start a new one, and people will share files over everything, heck even aim can be used. They will never be able to stop it. And for starting musicians, such as myself, it is awesome to get that kind of exposure so easily by spreading files on p2p networks.
Mandrake ISO's and a lot of other stuff is on Bittorrent P2P so COUNT THAT RIAA IDIOTS!!!
Enter it as evidence by sending a letter to the judge in the case and BOTH lawyers!
Ahoy, what is so bad about bein' called a pirate, I want t' know? Besides callin' thin's waht they aren't is pratically the national pastime nowadays. Now where can I find a bottle o'rum?
When I see the figure that 90% is illegal, I have to wonder, is that 90% as individual items are counted? Or 90% by file volume?
When I run searches on P2P networks, there are a lot of porn videos advertising websites that are available, presumably legally. If there are 100 porn advertising videos that take up the space of one copy of Lord of the Rings, would the people that generated this statistic say that the content is 50% legal and 50% illegal? Or would they say that roughly 1% (1 video out of a total of 101) is illegal?
Do we have a Judge the Recording Execs can't pay off??
Evolution or ID?
"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."
Does that percentage include traffic to Canadian computers, where such downloads are legal?
Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?
Does that percetage account for people who tried to download a song but got a RIAA-hijacked song instead?
What a waste of resources. They are playing at a very losing game. Before Napster there was always IRC, usenet, and FTP -- those are still there. After Napster came Morpheus/Grokster, which may/may not be left alive. But already the file sharing community has moved past into DirectConnect hubs, bit torrent, private WASTE networks, etc. Why do they even bother anymore?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
While that may help, it might be like saying Microsoft Windows is the most secure operating system among the average end user, or that Bob is more technologically astute than Bill because Bob can open a Dos prompt, and Bill has never used anything other than IE.
They say 90% of the material is copyrighted, but the statistic should rather be the percentage of copyright material that's unauthorized.
For example, Phish and Dave Matthews Band have been mentioned in some articles as giving their general OK to concert recordings being available on file-share services. These recordings are copyright of the respective performers. So do they fall into the RIAA's 90%? Or the remaining 10%?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Post and share as much public domain and open source info/data as you can get your hands on. Label it as such, so everyone knows that it can be downloaded without legal ramifications. We have yet to fully demostrate the greatest benefit of P2P: All of humanity's creative capacity available for free use at the click of a button. Imagine what Ben Franklin, Einstein, or Mozart could have done with such a resource.
The EFF has audio of the hearing and case documents available
Can I get the audio of the hearing on Morpheus?
We organize the occasional party in our garage. The local equivalent of the RIAA (the Belgian SABAM) came knocking and asking for their cut. They were very reasonable, a clean 15% of the gross. I asked whether this covered live groups too. Oh yes. How about artists that are not members of the SABAM? Oh yes. But we're willing to make you a gooood price. At which point I realize that this is just the local mob.
It really makes me wonder... when you cannot stand up on stage and play your guitar for a public without having to fill-in a form and pay protection money. I don't see P2P ever being legit in such a world.
Go on, mod me -1 irrelevant, but this was the first time I saw a music industry enforcer in action and I was quite impressed.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Swarm the oral argument from here:
20040203_oral_arg.mp3
Should work if you have a magnet handler like LimeWire or Kazaa installed.
smd4985
If P2P is banned, will anonymous FTP be banned also? What about downloading from the web, since it's anonymous too?
I just love the bit where the recording industry present their "90% of the 750 million files" study, and the judge whips back with, well, 75 million files is a lot, isn't it? A few more legitimate uses like this one would do a lot to push the point home.
``If that's true, aren't we chasing the wind here?'' asked Thomas.
Frackman countered that the Morpheus system would eventually degrade and file-swappers would lose interest."
I for one got fed up with getting 10kb/s over my 1.5mb line 2 years ago... and though I got tired of p2p long ago, I have yet to see people en mass stop because of the crappy network. So no... me thinks their strategy is a bit presumptious. Besides, if they shut down n servers, who's to say the community wont replace them with n^2 more?
more of a Privateer.
For the good of the country I keep what I find. And sometimes masturbate to it.
"All of humanity's creative capacity available for free use at the click of a button. Imagine what Ben Franklin, Einstein, or Mozart could have done with such a resource."
Yeah, but just think how many copies of the Declaration Of Independence there'd be, and then all the ones with other peoples signatures photoshopped on, and the people downloading Declarations for a living and printing and selling them on the black market....
It wouldn't be good.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
SCO.com is blocked by Google as a top result for "Litigious Bastards", I have a viable alternative:
Litigious Bastards.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
Indeed.. great source
Damn !
15GB is all the porn I still have, after my girlfriend found most of what was on my hard drive.....
Here is a perfect example of how p2p technology can be used in a legal, useful and beneficial way. I'm wondering if the 90% study was done with the same logic as: one download = a lost sale. I know there is a lot of copywritten material floating around out on the networks, but there are legitimate uses too. How many Bittorent links have you seen posted in these very forums to prevent slashdotting? I'd like this issue settled so we can start finding more innovative uses for p2p networks. and pr0n of course :)
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
The judge could easily seal the documents, I think. And even if he couldn't, the RIAA and MPAA would just pay Congress to change the laws regarding the issue. The idea would, at best, work briefly.
I make a point of sharing about 4gb of linux, Mandrake , Red Hat, rpms, you name it are available in my shared folders. I find myself turning towards bittorrent based clients & other p2p clients for downloading new isos, rpms, or technical documents because of the speed and ease of finding what I'm looking for. I'd like to encourage more people to share their isos & other free software. p2p is a great solution to a problem, don't let the courts be the end of it.
This is exactly what a library is except it isn't available, in general, in electronic form.
ARRRRRR!
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
I still don't see any of the filesharing indexes having a truly non-infringing use.
Remember, the users only share whats's popular, and what's popular is rarely free. The few do-gooders who only share what can legitimately be shared may find themselves flooded out by the cheapskates who think it's their right to everything and anything they want for free.
And I doubt the Betamax decision comes into play, seeing as how limited the potential distribution was for anything copied via it. In fact, I hope that fact is highlighted, since it shows just how much things have changed in the past 20 or so years.
I have plenty of porn with me and your girlfriend.
Money shots are extra, and, for a little extra, I can blur out my face.
Is that you, Darl??
Is it illegal to put mp3s you have legally purchased on a P2P network, and then download them from somewhere else, say at work?
Would it be legal to put their DRM files (which I understand are trivial to break) up on the P2P network so you can download them from somewhere else?
Casca
This reminds me of a problem from my Micro theory class:
Now the question really wanted you to realise that you can change the supply and demand curves to get the same results, but nevermind that.In both examples we are comparing a measurement that doesn't have the relationship it at first seems to.
They, in fact, have the same rather different relationship.
They are the upper bounds of the equations, but nothing 'deeper' than that.
Linux is pretty popular, and free, and legal.
The fact that someone can do something illegal shouldn't prevent me from doing similar legal things.
While i know you meant it as a joke, you really dont own the programs.. Even if you actually paid for them you own own a right-to-use.
And really, there is a lot more then pirated programs and porn out there.. there is a lot of legit materials too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What better way to show to the judge a perfectly acceptable legitmate usage of P2P than posting the oral arguments on a P2P system.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Bittorrent is P2P and has been used by Mandrake for a long time now, others have used it too!
Judge's comments at oral arguments are generally irrelevant to what the judge's final decision is. In fact, the judges usually question both sides pretty thoroughly. It is possible that this article merely didn't include the questioning of the other side.
They have to count MyDoom and all the others that have spread themselves via P2P, that's a useful purpose and no copyrights were violated!
So use Bittorrent. Does a damn fine job. Or grab it from your friends FTP. Or hell, contact one of the various companies out there that'll send you a cheap CD-R copy for $smallnum.00
Linux has substantial legal usage.
A VCR has substantial legal usage.
In many areas, lockpicking tools don't. Thus you have to be licensed. In others, slimjims are banned entirely. Sure both have legal uses (unlocking things you own,) but people found that their main use tended to be theft (picking other peoples locks to take their valuables/cars,) which is why the above happened.
I'm personally of the opinion that the P2P networks are simply a slimjim for copyrighted works. You can trade files P2P using FTP, HTTP, and IRC (even bittorrent) all of which have very substantial non-infringing uses.
Sure you can't easily find the latest warez, mp3s, DVD rips and cracked games, but hey, isn't that what all this is about?
Honestly, I think the RIAA has a reason to complain--how many of you use P2P programs for things other than music, movies, games and apps?
It's a good technology, but it's being seriously misused, I know this because I'm one of the people seriously misusing it every day. It's just easier to download a game before buying it to make sure you don't waste $50 on a lemon. There are enough of those [gamespot.com] floating around.
Except music, which I get from iTunes. I don't mind supporting Apple and music artists at the same time
Just share everything, even if you don't think anyone will download it, so what, it increases the number in their stupid count, they don't know how many files are actually downloaded from you!
And in this count, they don't know how many of those "copyrighted" files were actually downloaded either, so maybe honest people just skip over them anyway!
This is just beautiful. A judge finally recognizes the true nature of the situation. Their rights to control & restrict certain I.P. are unnatural and statutory. The limitations placed on citizens are enacted in law and are specific. RIAA et.al. are running around calling everyone a thief for doing what comes easily and naturally as a progression of technology, when infact this is just not against the law. An activity should not automatically be defined as criminal just because a bunch of incumbent monopolists don't like the consequences and the judge is right to tell this lawyer to cut the invective.
It says there is audio of it, but I can't find it.
So, WHERE is it? The link provided doesn't show any audio-files!
Includes the exact quote from the judge:
Good to see at least one judge "gets it".I don't get why P2P is under fire.
P2P is a perfectly legal technology, its just a network protocol! When these courts and RIAA talk about P2P, they speak as if P2P itself is illegal. No.. its just the distribution of "illegal goods" that is illegal, not the P2P network itself.
One gripe I have is that the courts and RIAA seem to completely disregard the Copyright Act of 1976. According to that act, redistribution of files were ok as long as it was under "Fair Use". The "Fair Use" guidelines evaaluated the "infringement" upon 4 categories:
1 - Purpose: Is the proposed copying for commercial or non-profit use?
2 - Nature: Is the copied work factual, or creative?
3 - Relative amount: How much of the original work is being copied?
4 - Effect: What is the market effect of the alleged copying?
For criteria 1, 2, and 3, we can already allege that mp3 trading on P2P networks is "Fair use". As for #4, the RIAA claims that they're losing $1 billion per year in revenue since P2P filesharing increased starting in 1999. What they don't tell you, is that the number of new records released by the RIAA fell sharply after 1999. How can they expect to make the same amount of revenue while cutting the number of new releases? Their logic defies me.
I hope that this court hearing goes well, for P2P's sake. P2P networks have a lot more use and purpose than just mp3 sharing, and I'd hate to see network after network being shot down by the RIAA and the courts.
Actually, the 9th Circuit has some rather astute judges. One is Alex Kozinski - an unofficial website of him is here - it lists some of his writings. One is Real nerds don't buy computers. They make them. Apparently, he is also a gaming reviewer.
Of course, those who pay attention to the FSF will not find this to be news. The FSF has discussed this misframing of the debate for some time now:
RMS has also been clear about this issue in his talks. He also takes on the misframing of the issue in the phrase "intellectual property", giving credit to GNU when discussing the variant of the GNU OS featuring the Linux kernal, saying "commercial" software to refer to non-free software, and distinguishing between the open source and free software movements.
Digital Citizen
FAGOT EQUALS YUO
First of all, a slimjim has a VERY narrow use. A slimjim is used for unlocking car doors, and that's it. P2P networks on the other hand do have substantial non-infringing use, even if that is not what they are used for. Freenet for instance can be used by people in free-speech restricted countries to express what they have to say. The kazza people have made a p2p network to make VoIP calls. Second, the point is moot anyway. File trading networks can never be shut down. It would be virtually impossible to shut down Gnutella or Edonkey, and something like a WASTE network or a private Direct Connect hub is invisible unless you are invited. Lastly, do you really want to live in a world where a person can be prosecuted for writing a certain type of software? I know I don't.
thanks home-made p0rn for that 10% !
At a recent party we played Pirraties (I'm not sure how you would spell it. It is pronounced like Pillates.)
Anyway, we watched Pirates of the Carabian (I know that isn't spelled correctly, and yet somehow I don't care right now.) and every time someone in the movie said "pirate" we would all shout "Pirate!" and take a drink.
Maybe we could play the game with RIAA trials as well. Although, somehow I don't think the judge would care for it in the courtroom.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
By biological necessity (except in the case of donor sperm or a surrogate), these couples are a perfect choice to thin out the ranks of children put up for adoption and desperately in need of a stable home.
God's wrath came about because the men of the city of Sodom wanted to commit a brutal, homosexual rape. There is a heterosexual rape described right after. Shall we condemn heterosexuality because of this rape? Let's say it together: "God doesn't like rape."
The code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus does not apply to Christians. Period. No Christian group I know of demands full compliance with this archaic code of behavior or else all Christians would have to keep kosher laws as well. Christians don't even demand compliance with the sexual rules in Leviticus. If they did, polygamy would be allowed -- which is lawful in Leviticus. Unless you are prepared to obey all the rules in Leviticus, don't start throwing stones in your glass house. Demanding selective compliance is ludicrous.
Paul covered rape in I Corithians 6:9. The Greek words Paul used in this passage include the word for a young, effeminate male prostitute and the word for the older man who paid to have sex with him. This is like saying "pimp" and "whore" apply to all heterosexual relationships. He also said briefly in Romans 1:27 that men will "burn with lust for one another." This begs the questions (a) are you ever guilty of lust for the opposite sex because the Bible is quite specific about it being bad between men and women too, AND (b) are you saying for certainty that a homosexual relationship cannot be based on mutual love as opposed to just lust.
Of course, the most important point of all for Christians would be Jesus. Everything else is just punditry, right? If you can give me an example -- just one will do -- where in the bible Jesus is said to even mention homosexuality let alone condemn it, I will issue a public apology and retraction to you.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stick to what you know...which isn't morality and the Bible.