Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

Posted by timothy on from the how-totally-amazing dept.

The Hobo writes "It's official: Hollywood studios and record companies on Friday asked the United States Supreme Court to overturn a controversial series of recent court decisions that have kept file-swapping software legal." (Previous /. coverage here.)

8 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

    The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

    The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

    The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

    1. Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay. Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault. It is an abuse. And it should be treated as such. Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's. The criminals are prosecuted. (Regardless of whether or not you feel that copyrighted material swapping is indeed a crime, either way, its NOT the p2p network's fault.)

  2. Don't blame the tool by Kethinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal. **AA needs a grip on reality. Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue.

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  3. As Ani DiFranco said by marktaw.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

    Starving musicians everywhere should file a class action suit against the RIAA for being used as the RIAA's defense in these cases, when we all know that the starving musicians are starving because of the RIAA's monopolistic nature & underhanded treatment of their "talent."

  4. I love this quote... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability..."

    In other words, they're staying within the law... Oh how dare they...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  5. File swapping software illegal? by antivoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's ridiculous:
    If they made file-swapping software illegal, that would mean that:
    - Windows Explorer is illegal, since you can swap files with it
    - ANY ftp client is illegal
    - Firefox/Internet explorer is illegal, because it technically has the capability to swap .html files

    I dont get it how people can demand things as "fuzzy" as this. Where do you draw the line?

  6. Re:Look, it's simple... by LordK2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If enough people agree, they'll change.
    Wrong.

    If enough people with money and influence agree, they'll change.

    There is a huge difference.

  7. I had mod points.. by jonhuang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..but I decided to reply anyway.

    As I've heard a starving artist say, "You can give whatever reason you want for downloading mp3s instead of buying CDs, and I'm okay with that. Just don't tell me that you're doing it to help me make a living.