Slashdot Mirror
MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable
Briefs defending Grokster's right to exist were filed yesterday in MGM v. Grokster, from Intel, Creative Commons [PDF], and many others. Among them, 17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based." Pointedly, the EFF compares this case's arguments to those made over 20 years ago in the Betamax case, which established the public's right to use video-copying technology, because of its "substantial non-infringing uses," even though many used videotape to infringe copyright. We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software: the Supreme Court takes this up on March 29th.
44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children. I'm not confident they're going to get this right, in the face of substantial corporate lobbyists.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
This is why I bang my head on the wall so much when I hear people get completely wrong simple things which really aren't technical, yet appear to excuse their manglings as acceptable because only wizards with great intellects can fathom it. Probably has a lot to do with the same mentality which says, "it's ok to give up some of my rights in these trying times, it's for the good of the country."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
IANAL, but I still don't see this going very good for the P2P users. While I applaud the efforts of the EFF, it's still going to come down to the MPAA believing that they can back off from this, and unfortunetly, I don't see that happening.
Granted, not many people really are going to want to watch ripped movies from some junkie in a movie theater holding a camera, but still, there are some who will want to view the video/movie. With music, while it is much harder to control, (i.e. the files are smaller), this is where I see the MPAA really cracking down on the useage. I would expect to see, even if this fails, more attempts by the MPAA to harass users and ISP's in order to get the trading of music to stop.
However, even if this lawsuit goes through, it just means people will find another way to trade the music/movies. In which case, in another 5-10 years, we'll be back at this point again. If the MPAA won't adapt, others in society will.
All we need is a P2P BitTorrent and it will do away the need for torrent hosting sites like LokiTorrent and SuperNova
fuvoo: watch something
P2P has been established as a useful technology. Nobody is denying this. Nobody wants it to be banned (at least they're not officially).
Grokster is an application of P2P technology that appears to exist to allow people to swap copyrighted files without permission.
They are not the same thing. MGM just wants Grokster and StreamCast banned. Not P2P itself!
What the heck are you referring to (please pick one)?
( ) - Abortion
( ) - Trying a minor as an adult
( ) - All of the Above
( ) - Just Trolling, move along please
( ) - CowboyNeal
Who doesn't enjoy a good dead baby joke every now and again?
the first is a moral issue, which has little bering on corporate profits (except the sick little monkeys in the execute-minors-industry). This case has to do with fear. Fear of losing control of 'properties'* and fighting tooth and nail (and no small amount of kicking under the table) to strangle consumption of their goods. Get the crap out there in volumes and at fair prices and pirates will be a thing of the past. Withhold it and then even rip off consumers with alleged-Widescreen (cropped from pan-and-scan) and you get those around the cracks and seams who will provide for themselves.
*most of which should have fallen into the public domain, by now, including a well known mouse caricature.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Oral arguments in this case will be held March 29. I am strongly considering making the trip up to DC for this one, especially since it's on a day when I only have one class and, frankly, MGM v. Grokster is slightly more interesting than Criminal Law. But my newfound loyalty to class attendance (compare to my undergraduate days, when I actually had a class that I only went to for exams and to get the syllabus the first day (I got a B)) will probably trump any desire to hear what the Supreme Court justices have to say on the matter in their colloquy with counsel.
Is anyone in the DC area going to go?
If P2P is so valuable, then everyone who uses it to steal movies and music should realize that they're abusing something important. Those of us who use BitTorrent to get Linux distros and legal content don't really appreciate the fact that 30% of the entire Internet's traffic is from the transfer of pirated BitTorrent files, especially if that potentially leads to anti-P2P legislation.
BitTorrent is a P2P software. The websites you cited are search engines.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
44% of the Supreme Court felt that policy decisions, like this one, properly belong to state legislatures. Please read Scalia's dissent.
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This is why I contribute.
BURN!
Fucking awsome!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This has nothing to do with P2P as a method of communicating data. This has everything to do with the providers of P2P networks providing reasonable safeguards against copyright infringement, which, like it or not, is the law of the land.
Saying that P2P is an important network standard and therefore grokster cannot be held liable for what it enables with its software is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
There is a difference between eliminating a transmission method and policing the items that are actually purveyed. For example, everyone lives in a house. But that doesn't mean that we can't be against crackhouses, or that we can't demand that landlords take precautions to safeguard against their property being used as crackhouses.
If you are against copyright infringement, fine. If you don't think that the safeguards being proposed against copyright infringement over P2P networks are reasonable, fine. But don't pretend that this is an attack on P2P itself. The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring.
"First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based."
Exactly. I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
For instance, the Internet was designed with redundancy in mind, when where a dead end is put in place, data can find another route to it's destination. Then you have some idiotic politician out to try and score points saying he wants the censor the whole of the internet of porn, free speech etc "for the sake of the children" Please.
And then you have idiots in marketing who think that the Internet "Is a big untapped market" of people who are just itching to come to their dingy website spend billions.
Sigh...
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
The problem for MGM is that Grokster, along with other file sharing services, doesn't actually infringe on anything, although they do provide an avenue for doing so. Using MGM's thinking, the Internet as a whole should also be eliminated since it can be used to distribute material illegally.
Don't get me wrong; I am highly critical of those who wrongly distribute copyrighted material, but Grokster (in and of itself) is not to blame for this.
This will be interesting, but I'm a little nervous about *where* the Supreme Court will take this one. Applying constitutionality to modern technology is a little tricky; Roe v Wade, for instance, gave us a ruling based on the combined interpretation of several amendments resulting in a "right to privacy."
Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy? Which amendments will apply to the laws being challenged?
I certainly hope for a ruling favorable towards p2p. But not just for p2p--also because whatever ruling gets handed down will likely set a lot of precedent for other cases where corporate interests weigh in against developing technology.
Free Sony PlayStation Portables from Gratis.
...of the Supreme Court who thought it was fine to execute children. See case "Roe v. Wade" in 1973.
I make it a point to make available on Gnutella the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, works by Thoreau, Poe and Twain, along with mp3's of early jazz blues albums all of which is in the public domain. I consider this my contribution to "Substantial non-infringing uses", I encourage everyone to do the same.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They are lawyers with expertise in law, not network designs.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If referring to napsterish programs by the acronym "P2P" is misleading then we need a new one to replace it dont we. How about MFSP for "mass file sharing program"?
In order to win this, they'll have to demonstrate a use of P2P that exists today in wider spread use than the copyrighted file-sharing networks do.
What examples will they use?
While cases reviewed by the Supreme Court useally get clarity, that clarity is normally limited in application. Even if the SC rules that P2P is legit, the door for the RIAA and others to continue persue the P2P companies and users will likely be left wide open. Regardless the effect will be limited to confines of the USA.
If the Supreme Court is truly serous about Copyright Law then it will need to enact a heavy Copyright Infringement Tax on any goods being shipping in from China and other coutries where the Copyright Law is Totally Abused. Forget dinkering around with filesharing networks that cost pennies in relation to the world practice of not paying $10/movie like US citizens have to do to see the movie!
When I was a kid people used to record tapes off the radio. Is that legal?
If so, why not make a frieTunes that sucks songs off the Internet radio stations and, if you have a radio card, the radio? Just tell fT what you want and it trolls for it and then sucks it into your personal listening library.
BTW, corporations are having a hard time adapting their business models to new technology. One thing history has shown is that countries that burn their fleets to hide exposure to the rest of the world (China) or ignore technology (battery in India) fell woefully behind. Allowing a supreme court to drive technology adoption is ludicrous.
We all know that technology such as file sharing is not going to die. Some country will have copyright-bypassing DVD burners by the end of the year and then, again, China will sell movies for $1 while the USA people are gouged for $10 at the theater! So, then the US government-backed economists will tell us the cost of living is lower is why our jobs are making a mass exodus but have not the fortitude to admit they have enacted a legal system that financially attacks Americans/lets other coutries off scott free.
Sadly, this is a case of extracting money from whoever can pay rather than enforcing legal justice. To continue to turn a blind eye on the rampant Copyright Infringements in Asia while attacking filesharing is like giving a speeding ticket to the guy late for work while failing to even investigate thefts (oh yeah, I'm wure we've all experienced this!!!).
Expect Freedom.
In the library example, it is the library that put the book/periodical/whatever on its shelves. That's not the case here, because (real) P2P software manufacturers aren't in the transmission path for sharing of copyrighted works.
This is more like the government asking copier manufacturers to design their machines so that someone who buys one and takes it home cannot copy U.S. Government currency with it...
I submit that Betamax has done more for this world than VHS ever will from this case alone. Thank you Sony! And I'm sorry the format didn't achieve better acceptance.
I'm especially reminded of this ever time I do a visual scan on a VHS machine, that has never worked as smoothly and easily as Betascan[tm] did from its very first incarnation.
RIP Betamax. Gone, but never forgotten!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Troll? He has a lower UID than the grandparent!
This is a civil matter, and is not as explicitly provided for in the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms. The main question here is whether MGM can sue Grokster for contributory copyright infringement. Note that the NRA aims to achieve its goals by legislative lobbying rather than amicus briefs to the Supreme Court - the gunmakers immunity bill of last year that they supported, for example, would have prevented you from suing Glock if someone shot you with a Glock. The NRA is better at throwing money at a problem than they are considering anything but their one-track understanding of what constitutes a "problem."
On a side note, the problem I had with that bill was that the courts should be making that distinction on their own, and the bill itself could have led to you being unable to sue Glock if you were shooting one and it exploded in your face. I am not an NRA fanboy, but I support many of the things they do nonetheless. This is just not their area of expertise.
And 100% of those "children" thought it was just fine to execute other human beings. Some of them even felt it was okay to execute other human beings because they were children still, and therefore the state couldn't do anything really bad to them.
Those are not people I want to live beside afterwards. So just where are your priorities?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Since when was it his right to decide standards on absolutely everything I see and hear?
If you don't want the bad stuff, don't pay for it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was pointed there by Ed Felton in a response post on the brief's abstract page on Freedom to Tinker,
I love getting some free Ivy League insight (as an aside, I go to Rutgers where we are always using information from our Ivy League friends).
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
I can't wait for a lawyer to reference MGM vs. EDonkey2000.
Oh wait, is it the IP packets after all?
You know, you should have said guns, not knives.
Analogy time! Knives:HTTP/FTP/etc::Guns:P2P. There's plenty of non-infringing (non-murdering) uses for both, but the latter group certainly makes it easier.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Applying constitutionality to modern technology is a little tricky
Maybe so. But this case has nothing to do with the Constitution. Just federal common law. No rights, and no amendments are implicated to any real degree.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This is more like the government asking copier manufacturers to design their machines so that someone who buys one and takes it home cannot copy U.S. Government currency with it...
SO the government tries to make the money 'copy proof' instead. And they HAVE done a reasonable job of that with holigrams and special threads in the paper.
Let the media try and make their stuff un-copyable. Wait... they have and that's against 'fair use'.
Back in 1968, when DARPA was creating the internet, Paul Baran pointed out that there are potentially 3 different kinds of networks, a centralized 'star' type network, a distributed network (basically what the internet is today), and a decentralized network (p2p).
Please click the link and look at the diagram. It's one of the single most important concepts vital to understanding the structure of the internet.
This is nothing new. The decentralized design was chosen to maximize the price to redundancy ratio. A distributed network is too prone to failure and was not feasable back in 1968 (and still isn't today because of the basic economic structure in America. The internet will remain decentralized as long as the telcos own the phone lines.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
if grokster is giving the thumbs up to its users telling them its ok to share copyrighted files, then they should be liable.
Also, why wouldn't the supreme court have just rejected the case instead of hearing it?
With all the pressure from states and federal government, it looks like grokster is going to be extinct.
P2P is a tool. It can be used for good or bad, it can be used for serious work or entertainment. But at the end of the day, P2P is a tool, just like a screwdriver, hammer, knife, or gun. The hands that you put tools in decide how the tool is going to be used. There is nothing enharently evil about a gun, it is how it gets used that makes the difference.
I don't really want gang-bangers to have guns, but I think that having a police officer with a gun is usually a good thing.
P2P should not be illegal, the act of piracy is already illegal. We do not need new laws, or even need the old laws "fleshed out" - they are perfectly adequate and can address the issue of piracy.
I'm sure we'll find a technical solution to the problems presented by this Tragedy of the Commons just like we were able to find a technical solution for the similar one with Spam.
Oh, wait...
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
And 100% of them are definitely guilty. We know that how?
The point I'm making is that for years, ISPs have been providing Usenet services to their subscribers, everyone knows that pirated material is on Usenet yet I've not heard of an ISP being forced to shut down the service due to pressures from the likes of the MPAA or RIAA.
Just strikes me as curios, that's all...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Heh.. Well most copier manufacturers have headed this whole arguement off at the pass by using a marking system that allows people to track what has been copied on what machine. I know Konica Minolta copiers lay down a super small yellow marking that contains the serial number of the copier that can only be seen under a blue light to help track down which machine was doing the illegal copying of items.
It's the wires! Wires and fiber are tools of the theives! Outlaw the tools and only criminals will use them!
Outlaw oxygen and only criminals will breathe!
Expect Freedom.
"the fact that 30% of the entire Internet's traffic is from the transfer of pirated BitTorrent files"
/. comunity
Where did you get that number? Even if 30% of all inet traffic is from BitTorrent (which i doubt) that does not mean that 30% of inet traffic is from BitTorrent pirated filess. Other made up numbers:
*72% of inet traffic from spam
*57% of inet traffic from robots
*19% of inet traffic from peolpe downloading Windows Updates (tm)
*4$ of inet traffic from Dianna, who by the way has a few friends who think that you are cute
*100% of inet traffic from Al Gore
*61% of inet traffic from the
*1% of inet traffic from porn (i would have said 72% or something llike that, but it might have been correct)
*15% of inet traffic from people who make up statisctics
Toughest decision? WTF. The Boy Scout manual lists flag burning as one of the proper ways to dispose of a flag should it become worn and tattered, touch the ground, etc. Burning the flag can also be a form of political speech, which is clearly protected under the First Amendment.
is the air through which we speak.
Personally, my priorities are right in line with my state's laws: not putting anyone to death. Maximum penalty for *anything* in my state is life without parole.
Where are you reading that those pardoned from the death sentence from this ruling are going to be let out to live beside you? In almost every case, it's going to be turned into life without parole.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
P2P the design on which the Internet is based? Ban the Internet!
"I've just been arguing this elsewhere. Claiming P2P networks should be banned because it's used to share copyrighted works is like claiming that HTTP should be banned because web pages are used to slander people, or that knives should be outlawed because knives are used for stabbings. And it doesn't end there, screwdrivers and pencils can be used for stabbings, hammers can be used for bashing people's heads in, and cars can be used for running people over."
*rolls eyes*
You must think the rest of the planet is stupid, otherwise you wouldn't be using such a lame argument.
Straight P2P (Like BT) fall under the multi-purpose argument. However the technology used in later generation P2P apps, to obscure content, and location don't. The betamax decision works because VCR's equally have multiple uses. However the card-crackers that DBS pirates use have far fewer.
An argument can be made that P2P network providers, just like telephone companies, ISPs, bus and rail lines, etc. fall under the umbrella of the common carrier regulations. That means they aren't responsible for the illegal activities of people using the network so long as they have no knowledge of the illegal activities.
If what you suggested was true, then ISPs would be scanning their networks for illegal content. They don't do that. In fact, doing so would actually increase their liability for any illegal actions by network users. If you're actively scanning for content and you miss something, you can then be held liable. I know it sounds strange, but you're actually better off not looking for illegal activities in the first place.
"We try to stop the ones who abuses it." ...by suing illegal downloaders. Oh, wait...
But I would suggest strongly that you look at many of the other briefs available on EFF's site. Respondents' Brief (the one by StreamCast and Grokster) is the most important, and there are many high quality amicus briefs. Eben Moglen, who wrote on behalf of FSF, has some great lines in his; and there are many other excellent ones.
And how long before Life w/o Parole is determined to be "Cruel and Unusual" for children? After all, "They have their whole lives ahead of them." And, "It's unfair, because an older murderer sentenced to life has less time to live." Don't tell me someone isn't already trying to make this case.
Will someone please show me where in the United State's Constitution the Federal Government and Supreme Court are specifically empowered to rule on state imposed death penality statutes, and differentiate defendents by age. I'd really like to read that part again.
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To me this should be a very simple case to rule on. The government shouldn't be concerned that certain companies are supposedly losing money. After all, it is not the government's job to ensure the wealth of certain people/organizations. What the government should be concerned with is the application of law and specifically if the law is being broken. By definition, technology cannot break the law. Therefore, I believe that the government has no choice but to keep the precident set with Sony v. Universal. Also, if they did decide to alter the law to make technology that is used for mostly illegal purposes outlawed, who is going to decide what technology fits in this category, and who is able to predict what new inventions will fit? If anything, a reversal in the Betamax ruling will make innovation difficult and only benefit corporations that are already insanely rich.
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
SIGFAULT
P2P in its innate design is certainly not an illegal device. I think how people use it, however, is inevitably geared toward copyright infringement. P2P works off of actually having a lot of users in order to supply a base of files, since the locations of files are not static and dependent on having lots of users in order to get decent results, and find someone who both has a decent connection to you and doesn't have a queue list of 5000. There aren't tons of people on P2P sharing today to grab legal music downloads and freeware software. There are obviously some, but the bulk of users are made up of people who want to download anything they want, copyrighted or not. Someone in another post made an analogy that if we ban P2P, it would make just as much sense to ban knives because people can murder with them. I think conceptually this applies, but the difference is that the amount of people using knives for violence doesn't come close to the amount of people using knives for practical means such as cooking. There's no need to burn down a house to get rid of mice.
The question at hand isn't whether P2P is an illegal device or not: it's whether the good outweighs the bad for P2P, whether there are a lot of people using it in a productive and legal way. Are P2P programs overrun by mice? Can they not be and still be useful?
I don't think it should be banned, but I have personal feelings that probably get in the way of my coming to that decision--Personal feelings rooted in that I use P2P so much for illegal and legal downloads alike, and wouldn't like to see it go away just because of my own personal gain. I think this affects a lot of people from actually coming to a logical conclusion. You won't find one if you don't want yourself to.
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
Well... yes please, actually.
If the majority of the human race is disgusted by something the USA is doing, and the only nations that are doing the same thing as the USA are places like China and Iran that have despicable human rights records, then it strikes me as eminently sensible to consider the possibility that the USA might be doing the wrong thing.
When evil dictators start looking at you funny and saying "man, I may boil dissidents alive, but at least I don't murder kids like you Americans do", then something is clearly wrong.
If America wants to be a shining beacon on the moral high ground, it helps to consider whether we're sending out mixed messages or not...
Don't tell them!
Actually, I'm making a serious point. Technology won't get banned unless legislators, and voters/lobbyists, hear about it. So let's design the next P2P technology with the goal of being as un-newsworthy as possible.
And 100% of them are definitely guilty. We know that how?
A jury found the evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, the same way all convictions are made.
And no jury, ever, has convicted the wrong person.
I don't think it's age-I think it's citizenship
as in, the goverment is empowered to execute citizens who wrong the goverment, and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such, they are chattel, with some rights, but damn few privledges, and in exchange for not getting those privledges, they are not liable to the same extent.
What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not?? it's been acceptably proven that the individual in question is as responsible as an adult....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
And everyone reads Playboy for the articles. Give me a break.
"Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy?"
Why not all of the above? And do not forget Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If you consider that any computer network is a form of P2P application, where the "peers" are the client computer and the server computer, than all computer networks can be considered a P2P network.
Therefore, if the Supreme Court decides that P2P networks are illegal/unconstituational, than all computer networks should immediately be dismantled and all computers should be standalone to be in complience with the law.
Bye, bye internet, extranets, and intranets. Bye, bye global economy.
At least the cylons won't get us.
Rather a shortsighted view, in a way.
When you give up your rights, it helps give them a precedent for taking away my rights.
The US legal system runs on precedents.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It particularly disturbs me when in said decision, they relied on "world opinion" in this ruling. I don't have to explain to you why that's bad, do I?
So, what you're saying is that if the majority of the world says one thing, but the United States says another, then the United States is right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a Democracy, majority rules.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
"17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based."
Now how long until some MPAA/RIAA lawyer twists it around and sues the whole internet as a unit? C&D letters to all ISP's, backbone operators, server ops etc etc... Far fetched and impractical yes, but still as recent filings have shown nothing is impossible in a dying mind.
As I understand it, the primary challenge is entirely interpretation of current copyright law, with its foundation in Article 1, section 8. To grossly oversimplify (and IANAL), MGM &c claim the technology is fundamentally for copyright violation, and that they should be able to collect damages from the Grokkers for the infringements; the Grokkers say it has substantial non-infringing uses, and that the actions of the users are the fault of the users, and go collect money from them.
The proposed legislation to ban peer to peer would need to be challenged on 1st amendment grounds, but that's not the case before the court. MGM &c are not directly challenging the legality of the product, but merely claiming the maker has responsibility for its consequential use. It may touch on the issues, but that's not where the focus lies.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Except for this little concept called sovereignty, it is one of the things necessairy to be considered a country (or at least it was back when I took political science). Now the US hasn't been very good at letting other people have it, but honestly you're just stooping to that level if you violate it. Also the world has never been a Democracy, the world has always gone to the strongest. I belive Locke said it was nasty, brutish, and short.
Accountable, not responsible.
Holding someone accountable as an adult is different than declaring that they are responsible to behave as an adult. Previously minors committing capital offenses would be evaluated to ascertain if they where able to be held to account as adults and then tried as adults.
This is different from emancipation which means that an individual has demonstrated that they can respond or be responsible as an adult.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Those are not people I want to live beside afterwards.
So put them in prison for the rest of their life. They are removed from society and therefore no longer a danger, you don't have to 'live beside' them. You also don't have any of the associated problems with wrong convictions and, to be honest, from a crime deterrent point of view I consider life in prison a more unpleasant prospect than death anyway.
question: If its found to be unconstitutional - why would that affect it in the slightest?
illegal obviously has an effect but unconstitutional is ( if i understand american law right ) used as a reason to strike down laws.
I agree with your point entirely though, if peer to peer is found to be illegal its not that big a jump to outlawing the internet entirely ( in america anyway, i doubt other countries would be as daft as to do this )
Yes the crimes are serious. But I LOVE the hypocrisy of people who say "oh joey was 14 he's old enough to know murder is wrong so let's fry the little F**ker", and yet will also turn around and say "That 22 year old slept with a 14 year old CHILD, she's by definition not old enough to consent, so let's put the baby-rapist in jail." It's crap. utter complete total crap. either you're old enough to be treated like an adult, or you're not. This cherry-picking B.S. is so you can look hard on whatever crime you're paying attention to at the moment.
If 16 (or 17) is to be old enough to be killed by the government, it should be old enough to vote.
That was a glaring inconsistancy.
Just like when you needed to be 21 to vote, but only 18 to get sent to Vietnam during the war.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I am currently working in a Top-Secret underground lab. We are currently designing a wetware package that creates a decryption algorithm inside the brain. When the encrypted movie/song hits the eyes/ears it is auto-magically decrypted and the listener/viewer can enjoy their show.
Actually, I really shouldn't be telling you this as I might get into trouble.
What was that noise???
Urk...
End of Transmission
"And how long before Life w/o Parole is determined to be "Cruel and Unusual" for children?"
Glad you asked, Slashdotter! So far, in thousands of cases decided before the U.S. Supreme Court since 1900, that question has never been accepted by the Court, nor has it even made its way for hearing before any of the 9 Federal Circuit Courts.
However, don't let that stop you from pulling this completely bogus piece o' crap example from your butt as an an example of your historical or legal stupidity.
are emancipated teens allowed to vote?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
but damnit when is Push Computing going to take off... I'm still sitting on half a billion dollars of PointCast stock!
-pyrrho
if it's valuable or not?? If it's valuable to YOU, then just use it, or biuld it, whatever. The net is P2P. What are they going to do? Ban the net? Real P2P'ers keep their mouths shut, and continue their work unaffected by all this. Only those on the "blabbernet" are having any real trouble.
What?
What a screwed up world we live in when courts have to decide whether a form of communication should be outlawed or not.
that is the nature of rights.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Having read through the CC brief in entirety and the Intel and computer scientists' briefs in abstract, it occurs to me that not one mentions the facts that 1) Everything is copyrighted now thanks to laws making those copyrights automatic and 2) That not all copyrighted material is then restricted from being published, altered, distributed, or otherwise used. The CC brief mentions 2) as practically an aside in mentioning its own licenses, without discussing the end result, that a minority copyright holder (MGM might have thousands of movies under its belt, but the average sad livejournaller in snow has that many angst-ridden entries in a year) cannot dictate how the majority of copyright holders behave with respect to their intellectual property.
Is it too late to file another brief?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, SCP, blah blah blah blah blah, can all be used to send files across the Internet to another party.
If that's the case, then I think that the solution is pretty clear.
Ban acronyms.
Is not murder, and guns are best at it.
That doesn't bring up the *nonviolent* uses of a gun, but this is about legality. It's perfectly legal and moral to shoot someone between the eyes under certain situations.
So just where are your priorities?
To stay on topic?
MGM ought to talk to InterTrust. They figured out how media companies can make money on P2P networks in the early '90s. Revenue streams from viewing, revenue streams from sharing, protected content, etc. MGM and the rest of those ostriches are missing out on some big dinero by not dealing with InterTrust.
......... kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Well, you might not find that book in the library, but here's the electronic version. It has: a dash of victim info, which we can consider to be our list of potential targets; lists of known organisations which you can either use to select a place to join or a group to blame for your own activities; and a large number of terrorist actions and their efficacy over time, which may help you choose overly effective methods or plan new methods with some idea of their efficacy. By the way, I don't recommend printing it. You probably don't have enough paper.
Now, should we ban Google, pass laws saying that news can't be put online, make a list of words that we can't use in searches, or what? It's about time you realized that information for the inquiring mind is out there, and the idiots will either not read it or follow directions poorly. This has been the case since cavemen first had to say to their thicker contemporaries, "Don't use the club on your own head."
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I didn't put this in my original post because I thought folks would already know it or be smart enough to look it up -- I forgot this was Slashdot.
... do you really want to let the media "make their stuff un-copyable" or do you want to scream at the FCC when they mandate the "broadcast flag"? Once you've eaten your cake you can't still have it...
The holograms and special threads are there to prevent non-copier-based counterfeiters. The U.S. government actually made copier manufacturers (and many photoshop-like program manufacturers) specifically recognize the images of U.S. currency and refuse to copy it.
Remember that "broadcast flag" the movie industry has been pushing for? You must have forgotten that they said they need it so that SW and HW will know what to look for (just like the currency images copiers look for) when it shouldn't allow you to copy or distribute it.
So
It seems that the eventual legal answer will be a federal policy requiring content publishers to be licensed like radio. You and I may recognize that the www is bi-directional, but, at a higher level, websites are considered publishers. Before you flame me with "1st Amendment" bullshit, consider that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you have a right to avoid licensing. Most major media have license requirements to some degree, so, the precedent is there. Even low level "consumer" publishing has license requirements: HAM, CB, CableAccess TV. Jurisdiction? Also, it can be said that, in the US, internet content is subject to FCC regulations, especially WiFi, and any data conduits subsidized by tax payer money. It will be a matter of time before some senator realizes there is a triple win here: a public schmooze fest of "decency on the web", content protection for hollywood [licensing introduces accountability] and a new tax avenue for these "licenses". In this case, it will no longer be about the "Pirates" trading the MP3s, but, about enforcement sweeps that lean on ISPs to prove their the webbies have valid licenses. Sucky days ahead!
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
Most un-newsworthy p2p application ever has been released today, to much fanfare. This news is sure to make headlines across the country.
We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software
And if it doesn't, we can all still keep using encrypted and anonymized P2P.
Firewalls (and lame OSes which push the adoption of firewalls) are much worse a thread to P2P than the legal system of some country.
This is really just more meaningless litigation to tie up legal recources in this country. The MPAA or RIAA can accept it or not, but people are always going to be able to get around copywrite laws, and the like -- they may close one door, but another will always be opened. If litigation and regulation did anything than Napster would have been the end of music sharing as we know it. Pointing the finger at the protocols used to share copywritted media is a futile effort to force people to pay outlandish prices for that media. Personally, I would much rather download an artists album over the internet and send the artists themselves $16, than go to a store and buy a $16 cd of which the artist may see 25 cents of. But if the RIAA would like to lower prices of cds to $5-8 and assure me that a good portion of that is going to the artist themselves (not some distribution companies profit margin), or lower my movie ticket price $3, or make dvds never cost more than $9, I would stop downloading all-together. Sure, copywrite infringement may be against the law, but so it high-way robbery.
For reasons not clear to me, NO. That may have to do with the intersection of federal and state law. State law defines adulthood, federal law defines voting restritions.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Guns are excellent for revolutions and such things. Those can healthy every now and then. Ask the Americans and the French about revolutions, they love to talk about them.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=accou ntable
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: accountable
Pronunciation: &-'kaun-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : LIABLE
2 : obliged to accept responsibility
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
but I got it right in the message body :)
What keeps me going is my inertia.
Yes, OBLIGED, whether capable or not. Thank you. You've made my point quite well. Someone can be liable for an action that they aren't responsible for.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
.. an 'ol-school rock and roll band to get out there on the steps, put on a free public gig, seriously rock out, get the whole thing on tape, and put it on the 'net for free .. causing a wild storm .. this would be it.
the point of this is: substantial public non-infringing use, and this means one thing: Art.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
A jury found the evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, the same way all convictions are made.
People have been wrongly convicted, even of serious crimes. When new criminal investigation techniques or technology comes into use there are usually cases overturned because of the improvement in crime solving methods.
Our legal system isn't perfect, and I doubt there will ever be a perfect one. Thinking that the error rate is low enough to live with it is one thing. However, denying there are any false convictions is quite another. The former opinion can be defended, the latter cannot.
The media companies are asserting that if a technology is primarily used for illegal activity, then it should be banned.
Since there are statistics showing that a majority of email is now SPAM, which is illegal, shouldn't we have to shut down email as well?
Outlaw marriage, and only outlaws will have inlaws.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring. People were using HTTP, FTP and IRC to transfer mp3s and warez long before napster and it's ilk ever hit the market. None of those protocols offer any copyright protection. P2P networks simply canabalized the majority of such server-based copyright infringement, primarily because they decentralize network load, and legal accountability.
are you serious?
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: responsible Function: adjective 1 a : liable to be called on to answer b : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties 2 : characterized by trustworthiness, integrity, and requisite abilities and resources 3 : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong 4 : marked by or involving accountability
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Absolutely! By the time of acquittal, the minor is probably 30. The wheels of justice grind quite slowly in this country...
The design of the Internet is of a peer to peer nature because every device assigned an IP address was assumed to have an equal capability to send an IP packet to other IP nodes as receive them. If every device can equally send and receive to every other device, then the devices are equal, or peers.
The only difference between these peers is the bandwidth of their attachments to the network. However, that difference occurs at the link layer, not the network layer or IP layer. A the IP layer they are peers.
Technologies such as NAT have broken this design assumption. People now have to put the "peer to peer" nature back by coming up with work arounds, such as port forwarding etc. Sadly, this work on work arounds takes programmer time away from adding extra useful features, or fixing bugs. NAT is a cost that public address space and a standard firewall can avoid.
One of the reasons why IPv6 is important is that it will restore the peer to peer nature of the Internet, as NAT work arounds won't be necessary.
It's going to look like I changed my Slashdot signature just because of this story. Actually, I realised the design of the Internet was peer to peer a while ago, and changed my signature to reflect that, also a while ago. Here's something I wrote with it as my email signature last Sunday.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
If other people want to execute other people... hell I have no problem with that. It's a problem when the State has the power to execute people. The State should have no right to life. We allow the State to exist.. not the State allowing us to exist.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Why couldn't we design a p2p system that uses EXISTING protcols, like HTTP, FTP, NNTP, etc (combine them to be effective)? These are already "legal" and they would demonstrate how ridiculous this whole discussion is.
Seems like you could do it as long as you had dedicated ports but I don't really know everything that is involved....
Anyone wanna take a crack at that one? Why couldn't it be done?
...and Hunting you morons.
Creative Commons music is really taking on on P2P...
Check this :
http://www.jamendo.com
It's Creative Commons Music + BitTorrent + iRATE + Ogg Vorbis... Awesome ! That's why P2P has to survive !
So lets ban them. All I ever hear on the news is people getting shot. I'm aware that some people might not use guns to shoot other people, however, I never hear of them on the news, so 99% of the use of guns must be to shoot people.
Of course, the 99% figure I'm assuming is probably wrong. You don't hear on the news that people aren't using guns to shoot people, because it isn't news worthy. There are plenty of farmers here in Australia who have guns, and use them to shoot vermin, including kangaroos (with appropriate permission).
My point is this; just because you hear about P2P being used a lot for IP violation, doesn't necessarily mean that it is being used substancially for that purpose, or that it should be banned. It may only be that you are hearing only one part of the figures. Don't extended those figures to represent the whole use.
If you want legal software you can go to sourceforge or download.com or wherever it is distributed. If you want legal music there are places for that.
What if you don't want to host your project on one of those sites, because you don't want to abide by their terms and conditions ? Say your software is really popular. How are you going to afford the bandwidth needed to distribute it ? An OC3 from an ISP is many, many thousands of dollars per month. What alternative have you got to share you software. Oh, that's right, peer to peer file sharing software. Too bad that in the future, you might be banned from using it, completely preventing you from sharing your software with anybody at all.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
These people who are against point-to-point software should keep in mind that they use it every day when they pick up the phone.
If we outlaw point-to-point apps in any broad sort of way, it will put the phone company out of business. (And yes, cell phones too!)
"Your analogy inadvertently argues for the opposite of what you and MGM are proposing. Many of us still believe that people have the right to publish books without government censorship or interference."
So you're saying I CAN'T go out and publish a book? Plan 9 would disagree with you. Plus many self-published authors DON'T use P2P to distribute their books. So what happens to P2P is pointless as far as their concerned.
"The media companies are asserting that if a technology is primarily used for illegal activity, then it should be banned."
Where did you read that? I've read the brief and they appear to be saying nothing of the sort. They are trying to put Grokster out of business. They are not trying to ban P2P protocols. There are plenty of ways to implement P2P in a way that respects the rights of others (in fact, Wayne Rosso, Grokster's president, is working on just such a system), but Grokster sure ain't it.
There is a debate technique known as a "straw man" in which one deliberately mischaracterizes one's opponent's argument to make it easier to tear down. I don't know if that was your intention, but there are plenty of intelligent things to say on both sides of this case without having to resort to this technique.
"Since there are statistics showing that a majority of email is now SPAM, which is illegal, shouldn't we have to shut down email as well?"
Of course not. But I can imagine an instance where a spammer that's being taken to court trying the same trick: painting it as an attack on e-mail itself, and not the action of the abuser.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I have never understood how Grokster is any different than Google.
Using either one, you can: (1) enter a song into a search field, (2) hit a button, (3) get a list of matches, and (4) click on a match to download the file.
Try it. Enter the following into Google: metallica mp3 "index of". You get 24000 results, most of which are folders that contain many downloadable mp3s. Google's massive results puts Grokster to shame.
(Of course, Google does have one legally-important difference: Google's servers are centrally managed, which puts Google at much greater legal risk than Grokster.)
Grokster is a small, meaningless player. The important target here is Google. This will not be fully resolved until the RIAA hauls Google into court, and forces Google to explain why they should not be held liable for what people do with their search results.
I did, and it's easy.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I'm sorry - could you be specific as to what is being stolen? As far as I can see copyrights are being infringed which != theft!
Libertas in infinitum
Man, this thread boomed while I was off at work. I'm impressed.
Do me a favor. Think of the number of times guns are used in the US per day, okay? Now, try and do a vague mental breakdown of the proportions of legal and illegal uses (what's this "legitimate" crap?) of them. Legal: hunting, target shooting, scaring off criminals, cops shooting brown people. Illegal: armed robbery, murder, rape at gunpoint, cops shooting white people. (Not meant to be an all-inclusive list.) Do you seriously think that guns are used more often illegally than legally?
Now, think of the number of times public-network P2P software is used daily in this country. Legal: Linux distros. Illegal: Metallica, "The Incredibles", copies of Photoshop. Do you seriously think that public-network P2P is used more often legally than illegally?
Now, I'm not arguing that P2P should be illegal. There are substantial non-infringing uses (imagine how hard it would be to sling those ISOs around without BitTorrent!), and that's what matters. What I am saying is that it requires a remarkably distorted view to say that guns are made for evildoing and should be heavily controlled if not banned, while P2P is nothing of the sort.
I still think my analogy holds, and holds well.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, then maybe it is up to those who want to use P2P to share legal files to set up a way to police the networks so that illegal materials are NOT shared.
Self-censoring and vigilante justice. Yep, sounds like progress to me. Oh, wait let's formalize this process. We can call the rules that we police the networks by "laws", and have a process where both sides get to plead their case. We could call this "court".
What makes you think we, the people can police ourselves better than we, the people?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
An excellent answer all around, and one with which I relate quite a lot. My question was about 2/3 flippant humor and 1/3 curiosity at what people might sincerely think... I'm delighted to have confirmation that at least some folks think like I do on this issue. :)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Okay, let's set the parameters of the discussion we're having. We're talking about two things---P2P and guns---which are tools, that is, which can be used for good or for evil, for legal and illegal things. We are furthermore talking about whether or not it is rational to outlaw them on the grounds that the evil uses are the only real reason people uses them. This is the "substantial non-infringing uses" argument for P2P.
Indeed, I cannot show that guns ought to be legal because they already are. I can, however, show that guns ought to be legal if they have substantial legal uses. (Remember, we're discussing the connection between a tool and its use.) If you think I meant that guns are only "used" when fired, then you misinterpreted me. I consider it a "use" when a gun is brandished as well as when it is fired. The rapist who holds a gun to a woman's head and the shopkeeper who scares off a robber with the Lupo under his countertop are both using the gun. Clearer now?
It's lovely that you don't use P2P for copyright infringement. And I'm certain that people use BitTorrent a lot to download their Linux ISOs. (I know I do.) But I tell you that a quick survey of the Direct Connect hub at any university (I know, I ran one for some time) will show that the proportion of legitimate to illegitimate trade is very, very lopsided toward the illegitimate. Any search of a public network such as ed2k or KaZaA will show that infringing material is more prevalent than free content.
My point, as it has been in the last two posts, is that both guns and P2P have substantial legal uses. If you accept the "substantial [legitimate] uses" argument, then if you accept P2P, then you must accept gun ownership.
Furthermore, note that the actual usage of P2P applications is more likely to be illegal than legal, while the actual usage of a gun is more likely to be legal than illegal. (Are you going to seriously tell me that guns are used for crimes at a faster rate than they are used for target shooting?) If anything, this only underscores my point.
Then again, if you consider shooting clay or paper targets evil, if you consider self-defense evil, I suppose I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Tell me, is your knowledge of the American people limited to cowboy stereotypes? They're about as accurate as thinking of all Brits as effete limey wankers with last names like "Wyndham-Scunthorpe".
I mean, what's your encore? Do you engage in an interpretive dance in which you hunch forward, miming a deformed spine, put on a ten-gallon cowboy hat and ten-pound belt buckle in the shape of Texas, and say "Hyuck!" and "Y'all" in order to make... what sort of point?
What I get out of your comments is (1) you think Americans fit a stereotype, Texans doubly so. (2) You really, really don't like guns, so much that you're unable to discuss them without sinking to the level of a fifth-grader.
There's a wonderful and spirited debate to be had on the subject, but you've decided not to have it. I'm disappointed.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans.
/. stories become commercially available.
That's a pity, because I'd enjoy such a debate. Would you mind taking our ongoing thread of discussion elsewhere if you're uninterested in pursuing it here? My email address is available (albiet in obfuscated form) next to my username above.
I'm not a NRA member, I don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers for gun nuts and enthusiests, and indeed I don't even own a gun (though one of my housemates does, and I insist that he keep me informed of its location as a condition of having it in my house). I probably will buy one at some point in the future, though -- a pump-action shotgun is much better for intimidating belligerants on account of its distinctive sound (the violent asshole whose abused girlfriend I'm likely to harbor is not hypothetical), and I'll consider a handgun when the pistol-grip-based authentication mechanisms discussed in other
My point here is that I'm not too extreme in my views, and I'm not about to go spouting slogans or statistics at you (unless you really *want* to get into an I-can-quote-a-study-that-contradicts-you war).
So -- mind dropping an email with a refutation of the post I linked to above? I'd appreciate it.
"and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such,"
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." No age qualifiers in the Fourteenth Amendment.
"What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not??"
Because voting is not a right. Nothing the US Constitution guarantees you a vote, and I'm willing to bet the same could be said of your state constitution. There are certain parts of the US Constitution that list reasons for which you cannot be denied voting privileges, but otherwise the litmus test is whether or not your state will let you vote for members of the most populous branch of your state's legislature.