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.

Comments

I'm not confident

[gowen]

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.

Re:I'm not confident

[gowen]

this doesn't mean that those justices believe that it is fine to execute children

No. But it does imply that they didn't consider it "cruel" or "unusual" to do so.

Re:I'm not confident

[AviLazar]

do you mean similar to the murder case: Here

Because you know, we should allow these kids to get off with a slap on their wrist.

Re:I'm not confident

[ari_j]

Read the rest of this thread. You are in the wrong on the actual holding in that case, and you are furthermore employing nothing but logical fallacies combined with an utter lack of understanding of US law to make a point that is entirely invalid. I'm through conversing with you on the topic, but this needed to be pointed out.

Re:I'm not confident

[gowen]

Your distinction between executing minors and sentencing them to death (then executing them later), is quite reasonable, well made, and duly noted.

Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference to my opinion of people who think it's ok.

Re:I'm not confident

[KtHM]

That's easy enough. If the kid would probably survived, had it been born, then it's murder. If it's still a little gooball, then it's not.

Re:I'm not confident

[MightyMartian]

Well what the majority of justices decided was that society does not hold children to the same standards of culpability or responsibility that it does adults, and thus executing who commit their crimes as children flies in the face of that very notion.

It's little surprise, of course, that Scalia and his lapdog Thomas were opposed. If it even looks a teeny-wheeny bit socially conservative, they'll go for it. Remember, Scalia is the guy wanted to uphold state anti-sodomy laws. More frightening, of course, is that GWB will probably try to stack the court with people of this kind.

Re:I'm not confident

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti choicers are inconsistent. It's ok to kill thousands of Iragi's, but not ok for abortion. It's ok to execute wrong doers, but not abortion. That is inconsistent. It's either OK to take a life or it isn't. It's no one of this planets choice to decide who lives and who dies. Who do you think you are to make that call? Who lives who dies? Its mans law they broke, and no man should have the right to take the life of another man for any reason.

Re:I'm not confident

[ari_j]

A full-term baby would die without extraordinary assistance. So would most 4-year-olds. And, by law, the same applies to everyone under 18 years old, unless they've legally emancipated themselves.

So, by your logic, if late-term abortion is legal, then so is post-term abortion up through the age of 17.

Defining life in a medical way is the key, here. Common law homicide required that the victim have been "born alive," basically requiring that the baby be born and take at least one breath before you can be guilty of killing it. Obviously, statutes have moved that back a bit to cover things like the Peterson case.

There are two reasons why abortion is still fully legal. First off, only a minority of us are willing to define life factually rather than legally, and say that a fetus which, if born prematurely, stands a really good chance of survival, is alive and one that doesn't stand that chance is not; or to define it in terms of brain activity, the same way as we now define death ("brain death" is the term). Second, as Scalia puts it: "It thus appears the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb..." There are a hell of a lot of doorjambs in that mansion.

Re:I'm not confident

[timster]

Incorrect; three justices (Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas) stated that we should not consider foreign mores. The other dissenter, Justice O'Connor, believed that there was insufficient evidence of a moral consensus.

Re:I'm not confident

[cayenne8]

I dunno....I see 16 and 17 yr olds today...that are more mature and mentally with it than some 20+ year olds out there.

I could see the ban probably at 14-15...but, I think some leeway for 16-17 should be there for the judges on a case by case basis.

I have no doubts that Malvo sniper character should have been put to death...but, not now.

Re:I'm not confident

[KarmaMB84]

The Supreme Court didn't grant Peterson rights over his wife's reproduction. They granted that right to her alone. Therefore, when he killed her, he murdered the unborn child as opposed to legally aborting it.

Re:Please Clarify

[gowen]

This decision, made yesterday. Do try and keep up.

Executing Kids

[Spark00]

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.

Re:Troll?

[Alsee]

You should submit a bug report.

-

Re:Troll?

[StikyPad]

AKA (+1, Redundant)