Slashdot Mirror
Mark Cuban to fund Grokster vs. MGM case.
Deadric writes "According to Mark Cuban's latest blog entry, he will help fund the Grokster vs. MGM case, which threatens to destroy the Betamax shield."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hope he doesn't make it into a reality series.
Cuban libre?
Who the F is Mark Cuban?
rooooar
You can see what he has done in nearly every business he has run. He has made it work, made it run smooth and gotten a lot of money for it when he sold it off. He took the mavericks and made them into a contending team instead of a team that never had a chance of making the playoffs let alone winning anything.
Its nice to see him getting in on this. He might be goofy and really into himself, but he is good at winning.
I think he started Broadcast.com or something and sold it to Yahoo for a gajillion dollars. Then he bought a basketball team and other stuff and laughed when all the people that didn't use their boom money lost it.
The Betamax shield doesn't necessarily fit the circumstances. With the analog VCR tech, there are generational losses and the machines aren't conducive to easy affordable mass-distribution because of their 1x record rates. One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos, but rather watch TV shows at a more convenient time, but my impression of P2P users is that they are trying to build libraries, and of material that wasn't necessarily licenced for broadcast anyway. Even when the material was licenced for broadcast, the ads are often removed.
With P2P, there are no generational losses and it doesn't require any money other than a working computer and an internet connection to distribute as many infringing copies as the user likes.
I am not a technology owner.
;)
I call bullshit.
The coolest voice ever.
This is not the editors' best work.
Spelling errors intact from his blog(I added the bold) :
So , the real reason of this blog. To let everyone know that the EFF and others came to me and asked if I would finance the legal effort against MGM. I said yes. I would provide them the money they need. So now the truth has been told. This isnt the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me. Mark Cuban and my little content company. Its about our ability to use future innovations to compete vs their ability to use the courts to shut down our ability to compete. its that simple
Dood wants to be a Hero - the Benefactor, the Mavericks, this guy is desperate for attention - not that I don't mind his neurosis helping protect my freedoms.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Its MGM v. Grokster, not Grokster v. MGM. The way it currently reads in the summary, it gives the strong impression that Grokster is suing MGM and that Mark Cuban is defending MGM.
Its always Plaintiff v. Defendant, NEVER the other way around.
The
I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.
One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos, but rather watch TV shows at a more convenient time
...the court recognized that there were people who did this, who probably were in violation of copyright law. An actual infringement is one of the requirements for contributory infringement. What they decided was that the potential illegal uses did not negate the tool's legal uses.
There is no way to rule against Grokster without violating the Betamax shield. Essentially, a tool has legal and illegal uses (specific circumvention tools like DeCSS might not fall under this, but otherwise the Betamax shield is wide). Can we punish the producers because a significant amount of the population chooses to break the law, using their tools?
If so, I would like to see the class action suit against Ford, Mazda, Chevrolet, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW et al for creating tools of speeding. At least around here, official numbers say 90%+ speed at times (and the rest are probably liars). You can fine the perp, but you don't punish the toolmaker.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.
In the USA, we use guns to irresponsibly kill each other. Only in rural and/or southern regions does the concept of a special "kitchen gun" make sense. Now you know!
not their best work?
you must be new here
this IS as good as it gets around here!
Betamax was never questioned in the case.
The original case went to a summary judgement over two laws: contributory infringement [A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (114 F. Supp. 2d)], and vicarious infringement [Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc. (76 F.3d 262)].
In the original case, the judge notes during sumamry judgement that Grokster found a loophole in copyright law, which allowed them to dance around the conditions needed for contributory and vicarious infringement.
The language currently being used for this loophole is "willful blindness".
Viva Cuban ... .Still sad that you need this kind of cash to defend our rights against bussiness in the USA though.
This is wonderfull news , We need more people of his financial stature to help take on the errosions of our libertys
Land of the free as in $
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.
... and I've lived here all my life, mate.
I, too, don't know about the USA
The nut of the Betamax case:
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that a company was not liable for creating a technology that some customers may use for copyright infringing purposes, so long as the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. In other words, where a technology has many uses, the public cannot be denied the lawful uses just because some (or many or most) may use the product to infringe copyrights.
Source
To my thinking, this means that manufacturers of cute cuddly teddy-bears are not responsible when some crazed maniac uses stuffed animals to perpetrate a murderous asphyxiation spree.
Furthermore: the knife is too goddamned obvious -- any fool can knife a man to death. It takes an innovator to kill with stuffed animals.
-kgj
-kgj
Living in Texas I've known several people over the years that have known Mr. Cuban. No matter which one you talk to they all say the same thing. He's a realy down to earth guy that hasn't let all the money and power get to him. It seems that if he sees something he likes, he makes it succeed, AND still manages to make money off of it too. So rock on Mark, because you're doing one hell of a job.
Keep Austin Weird!
I think that it is very likely that either SCOTUS decides that pirate-to-pirate networks are illegal or Congress does. The RIAA and MPAA bought Orin Hatch long ago.
...I'll just take this opportunity to say good-bye to all my friends in the US, before the lights on your subnet goes out. As much as I'll miss slashdot, I'm sure you will miss Internet more.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And he's putting out the Enron movie. Finally, someone spending Bubble money on something as worthwhile as Aeron chairs!
--
make install -not war
Sudafed is now a behind the counter drug in many states (slowing sales) because end users used it to make meth.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
Copyrights and patents are derived from article I clause 8 of the constitution. That could be changed, but not by everyone standing together and telling the goverment anything, you'd need an amendment. Of course, without copyright, there would be no recognition, any corporation could jack open source code & use for their own purposes without attributing any author (only the excercise of copyright via GPL, BSD license, etc. prevents that now). Most artists, inventors, software and authors would not go for this, I'd bet less than 10% of the populace wants what you want. Also, the goverment and most people would have a huge problem with you copying money, electronic funds transfer keys, nuclear launch codes, credit card numbers, etc. However, there are places on this earth where you can copy as you please; I've been to some of those places. if you live in such a place you'll be wanting to keep your self defense skills honed and carry weapons at all times, lack of regard for life seems to go hand in hand for places that have lack of regard for personal or intellectual property.
Mark's argument "software doesn't steal music, people steal music" is the same as the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Let's get things into perspective. Technology by itself doesn't do anything unless it's applied. People make the decision to use the software and how to use it. The RIAA got it wrong. The MPSS got it right. Discourage people by educating them on how stealing movies is wrong. How you affect all the little guys. Nobody cares if Britney Spears and fat record execs make less money. Really, they don't.
If record companies stopped killing innovative music, then I think people would care about stealing their stuff. If all people can get it trash, and they see it as trash, then they will respect it as trash. Pop music has become trash. Since people see it this way, and that's the only stuff they can get, they steal it cuz it's worth nothing to them anyways.
People steal music, not software.
Sure, but suppose this case did go the wrong way for P2P. We can probably assume that shortly after the SCOTUS "vindicated" the media industry position, we'd see H.R. 666, a.k.a. the Piracy To Piracy Solicits Users' Extreme Zero Royalties Zero Payments Acts or P2P Sux0rz Pact for short.
Seriously, I'm pretty sure P2P use in the US would die out real fast if all ISPs were required by law to disclose the name and address of any users whose computers are involved in sending or receiving data on some arbitrary set of ports, to be specified and updated by some government agency without further changes in the law. (Notice that if they managed to get that open-ended concept into the law, on the no unreasonable basis that P2P would just switch to use another port otherwise, then there would be serious implications for any use of the Internet.) Couple that with, say, an automatic $10k fine or 6 month prison sentence for anyone convicted, and it would just be too risky for most people to bother, and without the volume of users P2P is dead.
It would be a very bad day for a promising range of new technologies if something like this happened, which is why it's so important to separate the technology from the acts of the user in law. The argument is just as valid here as it is when you protect car makers, knife makers, etc.
Strangely, the media industry actually did seem to have come around to doing this until this case, going after those who were clearly distributing copyright material illegally. I would have thought bringing this case, which apparently could give permanent legal support to P2P networks that might be used as a defence in lesser cases in future, was a big risk. Then again, IANAL and neither do I know which big names the industry does and doesn't directly influence over in the US.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is an incredibly important case. At its core is the question: Can the makers of a product or the providers of a service be held responsible for the misuse of that product or misuse of that service?
Can the maker of DVD recording equipment be held liable for you or I using that equipment (and/or programs) to distribute copyrighted material. Can ISPs be held liable for any illegal use of their services? And let's push it to its limit: Can gun manufacturers be held liable when the equipment they make is used to commit a crime?
If this appeal succeeds, be afraid.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
P2P networks are copyright neutral -- anything can go over the network.
Note that the same applies to the Internet itself, and to a plethora of its components: Routers, TCP, FTP, cabling, webservers, etc.
There is good reason to believe that a vast majority of the traffic on the Internet is "pirated" copyrighted material. If the movie, music, and broadcast industry conglomerates can use a "mostly used for piracy" argument to shut down one application or one protocol, they can use the same argument to shut down ANY or ALL of them.
The entertainment conglomerates would LOVE to have the Internet go away. (Some of them even flamed it systematically as it was catching on. Some of them still do.) It pulls eyeballs from their products and is thus perceived as cutting into their revenue.
Remember that the Internet itself was designed as a peer-to-peer system - an interconnection of a vast network of endpoints that exchange information. The perception of it as a client-server, vendor-customer network (like, say, a broadcast medium) is an illusion, created by three factors:
- The enormous success of a few client-server apps, such as the web, (where the servers are usually run by a corp or institution),
- the rise of ISPs (with terms of service discouraging consumer-grade customers from hosting servers), and
- the shortage of IPv4 address (leading to workarounds such as dynamic address allocation and NAT, which also impeed hosting a server on a consumer-grade connection).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You don't have to look into the future to see how worries of copyright infringement suits stifle technology. Ampex had the capability of making a home use VTR (that's Video Tape Recorder) in the 1970's, but they were concerned about the major studios suing them for promoting copyright infringement. Ampex figured that the Japanese companies had less to lose, since judgements would have been collected from the import arm, not the main corporation.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Certain people would like you to believe that because your video file is "digital" that you are able to make a perfect copy of it forever. This is simply not true most of the time.
Digital data does not degrade the same way that for example, generational VCR-dubbing degrades a signal (four generations is pretty crappy on VCRs), but there are similar gremlins which make it much less bulletproof than popular belief holds.
Take your average 1 gigabyte video file from the net.
Once you convert the thing into a compressed movie file (that's two generations of loss, first the a/d conversion then the first compression process.. three if you are cracking a typical DVD since you typically recompress afterwards to get smaller) the file is ready to go. Now, here's where people want you to think the losses stop. And they are right, under ideal conditions, namely you copying the file to another spot on your own hard drive. The probability of incorrectly copying without loss is pretty low in that case, unless you have a broken hard drive, which unfortunately, Joe Public who bought his PC at a department store, usually has because the manufacturers of those things use low bid hard drives.
Anyway, once you start transmitting that gigantic file over the internet, you introduce transmission errors, especially when the transfer is interrupted and restarted several times. Not all file transfer software *correctly* resumes files. Most assumes that the last byte recieved was in fact whole, when in fact it could have been less than all 8 bits....you have to use rollback to be *sure*.
Optical media such as CDs and DVDs are in fact an analog medium, in that the data is stored as a sequence of dots burned on the surface of the disk. If you *lose* some of that surface, you lose the file. (yes, you can pull most of it off with the right tools, but most people don't know Norton utilities from their ass)
I don't know about you, but my ten year old CD-Rs that I burned in 1995 are getting CD rot pretty bad. Some of them have the foil flaking off. I lost my original OEM Windows 98 CD to CD rot as well. There is a pinhead sized hole on the surface of the cd where the data layer flaked off. Naturally, that hole is right in the middle of a cab file, and well, you get the picture.
My twenty year old video tapes may be a little fuzzier than they were when they were new, but they are still watchable.
Also, if you burn at higher speeds, and most people do, the error rate for the data written to the cd is much higher. That means that as the CD ages and God knows what the color change chemicals on the data layer do over time, the error bits on the CD will protect your data much less of the time.
Formats such as video cd and DVD are more error tolerant because if a chunk of the data is missing or unreadable the playback device can happily corrupt the display until it hits the next keyframe in the file it is playing....becuase the encoding method is relatively simple.
More complicated compression formats are smaller, but not so error tolerant, hence you get things like those divx green-screen ghost-trip video files that are found on the p2p networks. Those can be repaired sometimes, but since the file format is corrupt most player software poops out when regular people try to watch.
IIRC, the video-cd and video-DVD formats actually use the error correction bits on the disc to store more movie data, because it's considered to be no big deal if the picture is fubared for a second or two. (that's what causes those rainbow squares and pauses on a mildly scratched DVD)
And I don't even want to go into all the things people do to video files to make them fit on media that is too small, like truncation and recompression.
The bottom line is that while yes, under the right conditions you can make perfect copies of video data after the initial two generations of loss, the media on which you usually store them is *less reliable* than video cassette....
Yes, burned CDs suffer from bitrot. But most of the other sources of data loss you mention are either very rare or not applicable. Conversions are usually lossy, but they generally don't need to be performed more than once. If someone wants to download a divx rip of a DVD, the original mpeg2 stream has suffered a lossy recompression, yes, but each subsequent transmission of that divx file doesn't result in more loss. This is in contrast to analog formats -- the act of distribution necessarily introduces a loss of quality. That's not the case with digital files. Your concerns about transmission errors and hard disk failures are just silly. These things happen, but rarely, and certainly not in a way that introduces quality defects in the "authoritative" copy of a piece of media on a p2p network (ie, the most popular copy of a file, with same-hash files considered identical (b/c they are)). You might want to have a look at wikipedia's entries under "crc" and "hashing". Your intuition that bits occasionally get flipped is correct, but when it happens it's almost always detected and corrected.
The assymetry between uplink and downlink bandwidth for the consumer means that only a tiny fraction of what is available on P2P networks can actually be transferred by the network. A single person sharing files is limited by uplink bandwidth, and cannot really supply more than a few minutes of music a day. What the recording "industry" (actually distributors) are doing when taking individuals to court is actually abusing existing law that was made for a world were infringers would typically be mass infringers that do it for profit. A single infringement means a huge fine, but it was made so by lawmakers in a world where a single infringement caught (a single copied CD)would represent mass infringement (a warehouse full of couterfit CDs somewhere). It is necessary because criminals hide a well as they can, and law enforcement needs to be able to use what evidence they can lay hands on. In P2P networks it's quite the opposite: file sharers don't hide. They make their collections available online for evryone to see without really trying to conceal who they are. Copyright holders can then find individuals offering thousands of tracks. But in reallity these are offered through a very narrow channel: you can see all, but you can only sample very little. But the law can still be used to fine them as if for every track they expose they have a truck full of copies and no constarint on distribution!