Slashdot Mirror
Opening Salvo Filed In MGM v. Grokster
Aire Libre writes "The first brief on the merits before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios v. Grokster was filed Friday (January 21, 2004) by the Video Software Dealers Association. The brief suggests that while p2p systems may be used for infringing and noninfringing uses, courts should consider whether technologies may be used to reduce infringing uses without over-burdening the system provider, freedom of speech for non-infringing uses (including by copyright owners who want p2p systems to be used to reach their audiences) or freedom of competition (including first sale doctrine principles, and competition in providing all intermediate software and services). Bringing a retailer perspective, it strikes a balance of respect for copyright and respect for the limits of those copyrights. The brief is available here (in PDF)."
Considering this is a very balanced assessment, I'm not sure how it could be characterized as an "opening salvo," or if it could be, who is the salvo directed at?
What is this "respect for copyright" you speak of?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can you take away rights of the innocent in order to prevent illegal actions? To me... outlawing p2p (which on its own is legal) to stop illegal file transfers is like outlawing driving cars in order to stop people from speeding.
The internet (the whole danm thing) depends on technology called DNS, the Domain Name System. It allows people to type names of websites, rather than just IP addresses. DNS information about sites on the web are shared by way of a peer to peer network. A simple one, but that's how it's done. Killing off all p2p will effectively kill the internet. Tread carefully when you start trying to kill p2p. Also, since there are a lot of technologies that demand p2p (and there is no substitute), you had better not just go running around saying 'kill p2p, that will solve our problem', because it won't. Killing p2p won't solve the problem, but will harm technology requiring p2p.
Chief justice will atleast be serving until June, and this case decision is scheduled for July. How is that going to effect this case? Good/Bad?
While MGM's position may be "balanced", there's always one thing that irks me about DRM: it makes it impossible to use in the public domain later.
The very least a movie/music/software company must do to gain my approval is to deposit their materials to the Library of Congress unencumbered and DRM-free.
Copyright is supposed to let creators make money on their work for a limited time in exchange for making it freely available later.
Obligatory Disclaimer: IANAL
with the relase of Exeem beta to day it makes me think what if your product's only perpose is to distrabute iligal contenet?
The author's summary is correct, but as far as I know, the lawsuit was filed precisely because Grokster refused to incorporate any anti-piracy measures into its network. Grokster will become the next Napster if it does so.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
Doubtful. It's neither affordable, nor convenient, nor the most successful distribution systems. It's just the most profitable. Compare iTunes and similar to buying CDs: there is a better, cheaper way, and I'm inclined, after reading this, to write it off -- "literally thousands" doesn't cut it -- "literally hundreds of thousands" or "literally millions" would be much more successful , and not impossible.
"Enter letter number fire."
Beep. Beep. Beep.
[falling tone]
[explosion]
"Battleship hit!"
A lot of judges on both sides of the aisle have done a lot of stupid things of late to make their side happy. The supreme court is favorable to the right, although I don't know how the justices lean in this particular instance.
However they rule, if it's not worded in a painstakingly careful manner, it's likely to mess up all sorts of things in this area. Unfortunately, you can't tell what will be affected by the decision until things start getting affected by the decision.
These titles will prove extremely useful to future generations; they will show them just pathetic and stupid people can be, which will just make Jefferson seem that much more impressive.
Hell, it will also get rid of any illusions about society and culture "evolving" or "advancing" over time.
There's a lot of verbiage in this brief, but what it comes down to is the VSDA is asking the court to overturn Betamax and rule for MGM, just in a way that doesn't hurt the VSDAs interests. That's a bad thing. There's no good that can come of this decision, only a lack of harm -- which is that Betamax is upheld and Grokster wins.
The VSDA can probably see which way the wind's blowing and is trying to limit the damage to them.
the lawsuit was filed precisely because Grokster refused to incorporate any anti-piracy measures into its network.
How can a piece of software determine whether a contract exists between the owner of a copyright and the distributor of a work on a network and if so, whether the terms of said contract permit each instance of distribution? Could you describe how a practical anti-piracy measure might work?
> should consider whether technologies may be used to reduce infringing uses without over-burdening the system provider
This is an impossible goal. Here's why:
Every automated solution for reducing copyright infringement over P2P has always had one thing in common: sniffing and filtering data at some level.
Every data-sniffing solution has one of two basic architectural directions: centralized or distributed. If you pursue the centralized direction, you will rapidly encounter enormous scaling problems. If you pursue the distributed direction, you will rapidly encounter enormous management problems.
These difficulties are tremendously compounded by the fact that neither the P2P developers, the ISPs, nor their customers have any natural incentive for doing any of this. The "incentive" can come only from the heavy fist of the law.
The natural reluctance to deploy these unwanted, legally-mandated solutions will inevitably result in a "swiss cheese" environment. We know from past experience that massive numbers of people can learn very quickly where the holes are in the swiss chesse that allow them unfiltered access to the content they seek.
And that's the best case scenario. A more realistic scenario will be something like a repeat of SDMI, which failed so miserably that the public wasn't even mildly inconvenienced by it.
If this is true, than perhaps technology such as SnoCap could be used
From the page you linked:
From the SNOCAP FAQ:
In this proposal, what's to prevent a pirate from defrauding SNOCAP into thinking that he represents a label who owns copyright in a given work?
Maybe the software dealers are actually looking to set some legal precedence such that they can protect what they see as a future desire to use P2P technology, like BitTorrent, to distribute and sell software.....
They're trying not to piss anybody off.
Frankly, I hope all the MPAA member come crashing down. Then we can build a new distribution system that isn't paying for whores for eddie murphy when he makes a movie.
You mean that stupid audible magic crap?
napster only allowed mp3 sharing... this meant a common filetype and bit pattern whose wave form you could analyze.
implementing this on generalized peer to peer will only result in people sharing zipped, rarred, or mono'ed files which spoof that software.
What this slimy interest group is trying to do is get a ruling which would give RIAA/MPAA/BSA type groups the right to sue anyone who "doesnt do enough" to please them...
This results in powers of regulation even greater than that of congress... put in the hands of the tech sector's enemies.
This would represent an overturn of betamax.
The best result that did not go in grokster's favor would be to somehow use the same exact standard to kill grokster so absolutely nothing else would be effected.
Anything which created this kind of proposed "industry cooperation spectrum" would result in nothing less than giving copyright interest groups legislative power over technology.
As an attorney, I'm extremely concerned about any solution to this problem that advocates telling technology developers that they have to implement technology measures in order to insulate themselves from secondary infringement liability, which is the big issue in Grokster.
The issue isn't P2P itself. As many have said, the technology is perfectly legal and extremely useful. The issue is what bad actors are doing with P2P.
Both the technology sector and the content industry have to realize that there is an often-blurry but extremely important distinction between the two, and I think that the authors of this brief are missing that.
When they talk about things like requiring Grokster to help prevent infringement, they are talking about placing the content industry in control over technological innovation. If a new technology or service has the ability to infringe copyrights, then imposing a kind of duty like will essentially give Hollywood and the music industry oversight over the development of technology.
The MPAA already wants to be able to monitor Internet 2 for illegal movie trading. Do you want the RIAA to force Wi-Max providers to include IP sniffers at all their towers to monitor users to try and track copyright infringement?
Do you want to see recording executives telling software developers what the next versions of Windows, MacOSX, or Linux are going to have to do in order to satisfy this duty to help prevent infringement?
In addition to being content neutral, any solution to this problem has also got to be technology neutral. It's not the device that infringes. It's what you do with it. Target the business model, not the device that enables it.
Keep in mind, MGM et. al. have been lobbying congress for mandatory DRM on all electronics for years.
The VSDA's brief also assumes all content is copyrighted. They talk about copyright holders who wish to prohibit dissemination and copyright holders who wish to permit dissemination. They don't even care about the public domain.
"Yes, Ted, that was the joke."
-- Family Guy