Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable

Posted by jamie on from the spelling-it-out dept.

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.

3 of 732 comments (clear)

  1. Actually it was 78%... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...of the Supreme Court who thought it was fine to execute children. See case "Roe v. Wade" in 1973.

  2. Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall by jgalun · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    Yes, all those methods can be used to transmit files over the Internet. But none of those methods meet the three criteria that make P2P networks unique:

    Extremely efficient for disseminating files (e.g., SMTP is not very good if you want to share a 100MB file with thousands of people)

    Are widely popular precisely because they enable copyright infringement (the majority of web sites are not for the purpose of copyright infringement, but the majority of traffic on Grokster surely is)

    Are difficult to track down and eliminate copyright infringement (if an FTP site at some IP address becomes popular, it's easy to figure out who is hosting the site and who needs to be contacted to have it shut down. P2P networks have provided no such mechanisms - for good reason, because they're either ideologically against copyright, or against copyright because breaking it is how they make money)

  3. Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. by nine-times · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    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