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
No, it's not the right to execute children. 44% said that is ok to execute people who committed these crimes as children. There is a huge difference. In Arizona, there are 4 inmates who now won't be executed. They all are now in their late 20's and early 30's. They are incarcerated for crimes they committed when they were not yet 18. I am not advocating capital punishment at all, but I do think that you should understand what was decided.
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.
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 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.
"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.
If MGM manages to get Grokster and Streamcast banned, it is quite likely that it will be used as a precident to ban other P2P networks and technologies. This especially includes BitTorrent.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
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.
"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."
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.
No, you need anonymity. Without a strong anonymity model, everything else is pointless. You warez kiddies have ran from one lame layer 7 protocol to the next, like rats fleeing a burning building.
And while we're on the subject of anonymity, you might want to do the anonymity at layer2/3, instead of some lame-ass protocol that will be too limited 6 months after it gets big.
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."
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.
:-) Since "other transmission methods" are not required to provide any safeguards, the P2P networks shouldn't be either. I agree :-)
Newsflash for you. In the United States, the goverment CANNOT request that such a book be taken off library shelves. And that's a good thing.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement.
LOL. You know, the phone companies made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against criminals using their equipment and networks to plan nefarious deeds. The federal government made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against bank robbers using the highway system to get to the banks.
The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held
Aah, I see you are getting it
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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?
First, the original poster didn't say whether it was recording for collection or for time-shifting. However, it shouldn't matter, because the District Court decision (which was the one appealed to the Supreme Court) found the following:
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the
public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial
character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home.
Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to
television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the
fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. n8 Even when an entire copyrighted work
was recorded, [p.426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no
accompanying reduction in the market for 'plaintiff's original work.'"
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