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.
...of the Supreme Court who thought it was fine to execute children. See case "Roe v. Wade" in 1973.
The non-murdering uses of a gun:
Warning Shots- warning that you're going to murder
Target Practice- practicing murder
Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions- threatening murder
Track & Field- competing at murdering skills
Happiness (if warm)- warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife
Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards- murdering poor, innocent walnuts
Network Administration (see LART, definition of)- they'll have a different attitude if you murder them