Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Takes Hard Look at P2P
Patrick Mannion writes "Supreme Court justices quizzed attorneys for file-swapping software companies and Hollywood studios Tuesday, in a case that will help determine the future of both the technology and entertainment industries. In their questions, the justices were critical of the entertainment industry's proposal, which would hold companies "predominantly" supported by piracy liable for copyright infringement. However, they showed little sympathy for the file-swapping companies' business model."
SCOTUSblog has a more detailed look at the happenings today.
What proof? The Supremes were equally critical of both sides.
Yes, I can.
N.Y. jury finds some gun makers liable in shootings
Not that I personally agree with it.
2.) Copyright infringement of other people's stuff, no matter how many people try to justify it, is ethically wrong.
No it is iligal. Wether it is ethically wrong is something each man or woman has to decide for themself.
Freedom or George Bush
This was turned over in appeal: http://www.wlf.org/Litigating/casedetail.asp?detai l=48 and http://www.tsra.com/finlnail.htm
Since Grokster, kazaa, Azureus, etc. presumably close up shop and take down their websites becuase their businesses were found to be unconstitutional (which is what the Supreme Court acutally decides is the consititutional legality of an issue). No new p2p software is created commercially. Now what?
Well, constitutional protection against ex post facto (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) means that you would still have the right to have possess p2p software that was on your computer before the Supreme Court decision. You just couldn't use it legally. But for those who are using p2p to download copyrighted content, the legality issue shouldn't be a big issue.
On a related note, programmers with the neccessary wherewithal, will continue to create and update p2p applications...illegaly but will do so none-the-less. Or p2p projects will be created and maintained outside the US. If history has shown us anything, criminalizing a behavior or thought has little effect in stopping the behavior, and tends to give it a glamourizing effect. Example #1: drug use. Example #2: Prohibition.
Or say everybody just walks away from p2p applications all together. Then what, does piracy stop? Of course not. What Microsoft calls "casual piracy" the making of physical, unauthorized copies of copyrighted material has always been a bigger share of piracy than p2p file sharing. Ignoring that issue, what would happen? Instead of downloading illegal content through your p2p client of choice, there would be a resurgence of services like usenet and IRC.
If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in Betamax, there would have been severe implications, because building hardware is a more difficult enterprise and harder to hide what your doing. But a ruling in favor of the RIAA here wouldn't have half the effect they think it would.
That said, I think it would be historically bad precedent that would criminalize perfectly legal behavior (getting the latest Fedora distribution.
The best way to fight the government is to work with it. Write your support to newspapers. Write your congressperson, they're not all as currupt as you think. At the very least they want to get re-elected and the best way to get re-elected is to support causes popular to your constituency, and oppose causes unpopular to them. Write a detailed, sincere letter, and most of them will respond. But they won't know anything if you don't tell them. Its your job to ask the government to work for you.
Free MacMini
You're missing the point entirely. It does not matter that p2p is mostly used to commit copyright infingement (side note: I'd like to see statistics to back up your assertion rather than just your anecdotal evidence), all that matters is that p2p software is capable of significant non-infringing use. This is the doctrine that Sony Corp. vs. Universal established, and what the content industry would like to abolish.
No, because there is plenty of music available for legitimate sharing and downloading with the blessing of its copyright holders. (An example: Magnatune).
It is therefore a very legitimate feature for ISPs to advertise - and this is becoming more and more so as sharing-friendly licensing initiatives like Creative Commons take root.
Oh, and the music biz has no intrinsic right for their preferred business model to be protected. They have to compete on a fair playing field like everyone else - including artists using a sharing-friendly business model. Protecting copyright is not the same as protected one specific business model among the many built upon copyright.
-- Jamie