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.
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 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.
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.
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