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.
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
1. Save the children! The Supreme Court is out to kill children, so it's safe to assume that they're also out to make mistakes in their rulings.
2. Corporate lobbyists are always in the Supreme Court telling the justices how to rule, and the justices rule as the lobbyists tell them to.
3. The sky is green.
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!
This isn't true. Four of the nine justices were of the opinion that it is not unconstitutional to sentance minors to the death penalty, this doesn't mean that those justices believe that it is fine to execute children. It is the justices' duty to make decisions based on their interpretations of the constitution and laws, not based on their personal opinions. For evidenece of this, look at their decision in the Flag-burning case (I'm too lazy to look up the name of the case). Justice Scalia, who is opposed to flag burning, was the swing vote in the case which upheld our right to burn the US flag. If you ever get the chance to hear him speak, ask him about the case and he'll tell you that it was one of the toughest decisions he had ever made on the court at the time.
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
That's not the whole truth. Conservative judges just don't feel that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of values or morals. They feel that the role belongs to the legislature. It's about judicial self-restraint.
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.
"44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children."
I don't disagree with their reasoning. I'd go a lot further. Certainly there are 15 year olds who are aware of the consequences of their actions, and should be held accountable.
I have difficulty with the arbitrary age distinction for emancipation. A teenager with a very sheltered life actually has certain disadvantages versus one who grows up streetwise, for instance. There are adult 12 year olds, and there are 20 year olds who are still children.
People under 18 should have some means to emancipate themselves, gain the right to vote, run for office, manage their own finances, own real property, etc. Not all are capable of succeeding, but there should be a process where they are given the opportunity.
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.
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.
linux distributions?
http://www.filerush.com
Or are we talking specifically clients like Morpheus , et al?
There are a LOT of conspiracy theory documents, etc on P2P networks (or there were last time I used one) that would certainly qualify as a free speech use.
There are also loads of personal photos that people apparently want to share with the world.
It's also a viable distribution method for independent artists.
The list goes on and on and on.
Well, that tells you something about him. It should have been a no-brainer: A flimsy piece of cloth is obviously not as important as our freedoms. If he had to struggle over that for more than 30 seconds, he's not fit for his position.
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
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.
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.
44% of the Supreme Court thought its fine to execute children.
What a provocative misstatement.
4 out of 9 justices believed that there was no distinction in the law as it's written between a person who committed a crime at the age of 18, and a person who committed a crime at the age of 17.
No one has suggested it's proper to strap an 8-year-old into an electric chair.
Your are not consistant. Its mans law they broke, and no man should have the right to take the life of another man for any reason. So are you pro-life, and thus apparently inconsistent because you are for the Iraq war, or pro-choice, and thus inconsistent because you are against killing anyone after they are born?
While many pro-lifers are for the Iraq war, the two issues have little in common. There are plenty who are against the Iraq war.
Even among those who are for the war, they are not in consistant. They make a distinction between taking an innocent life, taking the guilty, and accidental death. Since the unborn are innocent of wrong doing it is not right to kill them for any reason. (most stop just short of that and make allowances for mothers health, but this is such a tiny amount of abortions that it hardly counts) By contrast, those in Iraq are either guilty of intending to harm the US, or innocents that we are taking all precaution to prevent their deaths, but accidents happen. (and it isn't right to count deaths by terrorists just because the US is now there)
Open your mind. Look at what these people really believe, not some strawman argument that you want them to believe so you can consider yourself better.
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
So the question becomes then, what is the difference between someone who is 17 years and 364 days and 23 hours old who brutaly rapes and muders a woman compared to someone who is 18 years 0 days and 0 hours old? When one becomes 18 is one magicaly more capable of understanding the right and wrong of a situation?
If you actualy read anything, you would notice most of the disenting opinions beleived that competency should be established on a case by case basis. This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
killing someone for the crimes of someone else
Incorrect. Killing a non-someone for the crimes of someone else. It's only fair that there be a sliding scale of morality on this one, because there is no magical moment. No chorus of angels sings during the seconds that sperm DNA merges with egg DNA. On the other hand, neither does it happen as soon as a fetus leaves a woman's body.
You need to look at what makes us seem "human". Do we hold a great deal of affection for DNA? It's just a chemical; it doesn't think, love, etc. Do you cry when your skin cells die? Do we cry when unique combinations of DNA (all around us, every day) die? Do we pity all of the embryos that miscarry before the woman even realizes that she was pregnant (about half of them)? And most importantly, do we find it acceptable to kill one of a pair of identical twins, since their DNA is the same?
It's not DNA that makes a person; it is who they are. Their thoughts, their emotions, their hopes and dreams. This doesn't appear overnight. It doesn't appear at the hour of conception, at birth, or at their 18th birthday. It builds up. There should be no issue at all with aborting an embryo that doesn't have a single neuron; however, a slow moral issue should build up as cognition increases, leading to a general rule that abortion at the end of pregnancy should only be allowed in the case of a risk to the mother's life.
Interestingly enough, this corresponds fairly well to our current abortion laws. You'd be hard-pressed to find where you can just go into a clinic at month 8 and say "I want an abortion"; on the other hand, getting morning after pills isn't hard at all. And it's a reasonable compromise; if you can't decide within a few months whether you should carry the potential child, something is probably wrong with you.
Lastly, there are some serious problems with just a general ban on abortion. Suicides. Coat hangers. Etc. I once knew someone who was raped when she was a teenager and starved herself until she miscarried so that her parents would never find out that she was pregnant. I can't even imagine this being a general situation. It's not something to take lightly... at all.
Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean'.
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
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
Slashdot is a forum for discussion, get over it.
Ah, well, if it's legitimacy we talk of, then it is a personal moral opinion. Enjoy yours!
I would take some issue with your points though:
1) a)the efficacy of a course of action is irrelevant as to it's legitimacy as a morally acceptible course of action. I cannot poop gold; but this is of no bearing to a discussion of whether I should or not.
1) b)the fact that the US federal and state governments constantly try to get round the constitution's limits on their powers does not invalidate the legitimacy of that document. I have no doubt that any attempt to overthrow the US government from within would be met with crushing force. This is largely the point of the ammendment: to try and prevent the Govt. from supressing legitimate dissent with force. It has probably now failed. The Republic is probably now an Empire. What can you do?
2) a)Most people in the world accept the principle that sometimes it is legitimate to use deadly force to act for the greater good. I think the Mahatma put it best when he said "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." Obviously, he prefered when possible the third way, of non-violence, but he accepted that sometimes violence was, regretably, necessary.
If you disagree with him, and do not believe that the use of force against other humans is ever legitimate, no matter how many Jews they gas, then indeed, guns are probably not legitimate. What did Monty Python say again? "Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."
2) b)If it is acceptable for the police to have weapons to defend themselves, how much more so is it for the people to have weapons to defend themselves? Particularly since the police are under no legal obligation to do anything to protect the people. You seem to have accidentally suggested another legitimate reason, whoops!
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I agree, bittorrest is very useful and actually has a lot of legal sofware. It is the exception; most every filesharing program is used by 99% of its users for illegal activity. If someone doesn't believe me, go and look for yourself.
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
And if you want to know the law, check the code, don't go on a feeling or belief.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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?
...most every filesharing program is used by 99% of its users for illegal activity.
The problem is that each country has its own copyright laws and laws regulating what is considered a crime over the internet. For example, here in Canada it's illegal to upload copyright files, but not illegal to download them. And when it's P2P, the argument can be made that nobody is uploading (since the P2P service is not being used to transport media to or or store media on a server or webpage) and everyone is downloading. The Internet is a means of international communication, and P2P networks serve not only the United States but the entire world. How can MGM argue that tools like Grokster and its like do not have the legal right to exist if the "illegal" actions that take place under services are not illegal everywhere? MGM could potentially argue that stricter bans/filtering/whatnot are necessary within areas in which downloading of copyrighted material is a crime, or that Grokster work with law enforcement in a way similar to phone companies, but that's about all.