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."
What do the "business models" have to do with this? There are file sharing clients out there that are entirely free and have no company behind them to have a "business model". Not everybody's selling something.
They seem to be lumping together the technology used to produce P2P software, and the businesses that use P2P to make profit
This will enable them to make a stronger case in their basic "p2p is bad" argument, when it's not the way it should be. Hopefully they will view the two things differently
Business Voyeur
It seems that p2p takes away rights out of those that create things and make them public. Be they songs or photos etc.
P2P is basically publishing. Why should you be allowed to publish my stuff, if I hold the copyright?
These rights go away with time when the copyright expires. (A really stupid long time, thanks congress)
If a creator wants to make something public domain then they can do that. If they want to paid for something they create, they should be able to do that too. (my photos are routinely hot linked as bloggers backgrounds and I don't care, so I don't sue)
Whats with the right to do what you want with whatever you want all of a sudden?
Unfortunately, the only tool really before the Court is an overturning of the Betamax doctrine, which was decided with a much more sympathetic defendent.
This is one of the few cases I can think of where the appropriate charge should have been conspiracy. It's a crappy bit of law, but it would actually fit. As it is, I'm afraid that the Defendents may have screwed us all.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
That was an interesting assertion about the predominance of piracy in P2P. I seem to remember a slashdot article about how the majority of Bittorrent and other P2P services were not used primarily for piracy. Maybe Grokster and StreamCast are different? I'm sure that wont help them. They need to focus on all the little old ladys that use P2P to send pictures of their Grandkids to the world. Ossus
P2P is like the the kitchen knife: You can use it to cook or you can use it to kill people, but just because you can kill people doesn't mean we should prohibit everyone from using a knife to cook.
Likewise, you can't restrict people's ussage of P2P just because P2P it is also used for piracy, after all P2P is probably one of the most useful networking patterns in existence for all kinds of things.
If I were the enterntainment industry, I'd embrace P2P as it solves one of the biggest problems they face today: Bandwith to millions of people. This just goes on to show that the people running the enterntainment industry are dinosaurs falling behind the times.
I agree that the Supreme Court will likely keep things as is and move on, but once this issue gets to Congress, watch out...
Then it becomes entirely about who is lining whose pockets. The RIAA, with the help of some of its friends, has a decent shot at buying what it wants.
Granted there are opponents w/ money, but the RIAA has proven to be very motivated.
-- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
It seems likely that the Supreme Court will not overturn the lower Court's decision, and that is good for artists and consumers. Good riddance to the big labels, I say.
But the question of compensating artists has not been addressed. We need to create an environment where downloaders want to support musicians they love rather than simply downloading their stuff for free.
Musicians need to start setting up tipjars and consumers need to ask rigorous question about how much of anything they purchase goes to an intermediary.
I recently went to a concert of Kristin Hersh where she sold no CD's but encouraged people to support her by buying mp3's of demos off her website. I bought $20 of mp3's off her website, of which Hersh received a significant percentage. Is that the future?
Here are some other thoughts about how to reward musicians
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Exactly! Keep the decisions in Congress, where they are more easily bought and paid for!
From the sound of it, the court is taking a reasonable approach. Have some faith in the institution, they have a hell of a track record.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Heh, the sad thing is that what Republicans and Democrats alike call "activism", most normal people call "applying the constitution". Read the majority and opposition opinions of most of their cases. Rarely do any of them read "I'm a Democrat and your Republican law sucked ass so we're cancelling it" or vice versa.
Given a bunch of P2P programs, infringers of a feather are going to flock together. Even wit the best intentions of providing a legitimate service, one service will end up known as the 'best place' to trade copyrighted files, and people will go there.
You can shoot the messenger, but another will rise in its place.
Note to the RIAA/MPAA: profit from P2P, instead of trying to fight it. You've just had the most powerful and potentially convenient distribution method in the world dropped in your laps, and it costs you nothing to distribute content now. If you can't find a way to increase your profits in light of that, then you deserve extinction. Someone will rise to replace you, too.
All of the previous courts that have ruled on this case have sided with P2P. Probably because the P2P side has been making the argument that P2P is just the next version of VCRs, audio tapes, etc. Also the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright laws is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and the P2P side has artists saying that the tech is good for them because it helps them get their stuff out. The RIAA's argument is pretty much "we're losing money" rather than "the arts are being destroyed" so they have a harder argument to pull off. There is also the strong evidence showing that many people who use P2P do buy the music later on. While this is still technically illegal, it ends up promoting the arts so this is probably a Good Thing in the eyes of the Founders.
--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof
I like the analogy, but I'd say that modern P2P is more like the broadsword--you can use it to cook or you can use it to kill people, but you can be damn sure that it was designed with a specific purpose in mind...
Yes, P2P is used for plenty of legal activity. A P2P application, in and of itself, does not violate the law. You're lying to yourself, though, if you suggest that the driving force behind P2P is anything other than illegal file sharing.
I, too, think that the court will find in favor of P2P, but honestly, there are no good guys in court today. One side is a pack of morally bankrupt, lying weasels who claim to be looking out for the little guy but are really in it for the money--but I don't care too much for the other side, either.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
This morning, National Public Radio ran a piece on the upcoming SCOTUS arguments. To my disappointment, it was a industry-friendly puff piece that didn't even attempt to find a valid use for the file-sharing technology. It could have been written by an RIAA PR rep, especially given the number of times they used the phrase "downloading copyrighted works". The only opposing view was a short whine by someone with Grokster about their business model.
Usually, NPR excels in their reporting. But on this subject (as well as the subject of low-power FM broadcasting, another place where public radio puts its own interests above those of the public) they fall way short.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Why people seem to equate that to a need to keep keep from developing P2P applications is beyond me.
Because in general the courts have decided that the government has an interest in preventing crimes, not just punishing them.
That means that sometimes they'll make activities illegal even when they don't harm anybody. Owning an unregistered gun is usually illegal, even if you don't shoot anybody. Driving while intoxicated is illegal even if you don't hit anybody. Owning cocaine has legitimate medical purposes, but try telling the court that you have a gram to fix nosebleeds. Lockpicks and other tools often used in the commission of crimes are illegal in some places.
If they find that a bit of technology is used primarily for illegal purposes, they'll make the technology itself illegal. It's not a very libertarian attitude, and in the cases I cited there are plenty of people who would say that the court is wrong. And it certainly conflicts with your rights in a strict-constructionist sense. But the courts have often found that "insure domestic Tranquility" can include preventative measures.
So feel free to disagree with it, but their reasoning shouldn't be totally opaque.
This is not just about the music/video/software industries..
If a company ( or person ) can be held legally accountable for the improper use of his product then many industries are screwed and this could wreak havoc on the countries economy due to the litigious nature of the present day.
Everyone from car manufacturers, to gun makers could now be argued, with this precedent, that they are liable. Even a brick manufacturer could conceivably sued under this pretense.
The fall out of this case may just effect the long term viability of this country.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I suppose i'm not a good capitalist
i'm not going to even touch the particular argument about whether P2P software or activities are inherently illegal or not because i'll make my vote on my own.
what bothers me is the inherent idea of copyrighting materials. i believe as most people presumably do that it is fair to expect to make a living off the work you produce. but i don't see how it is an automatic right that anything you make muscially should sustain you for years, particularly if you never do anything again.
as an activist for freedom of speech, i will certainly allow that a song of revolution is equally valuable as a novel that shook the world. but as a consumer, i'll tell you that i think the average Britney Spears schmaltz isn't worth even listening to the ads on the radio, let alone paying money for it. and the fact that twenty years from now, they'll be selling minivans to her current fans using that song just saddens me. the fact that any person can cruise talentlessly through the music industry and then get huffy about protecting their right to live off that "work" just makes me laugh
but what makes me cry is something different. take the example of Happy Birthday. one of those universal songs, you might end up singing it every month for the rest of your life (certainly around my office you do). it is one of the cornerstones of Western culture, a part of our collective social imaginary. we as a people sing this song in celebration time and again.
unless of course you're in the movies or a commercial or television. because yes, somebody wrote it and they expect to get paid. who cares if they're ninety year old ladies at this point. or for that matter, who cares if it's the children of those 90 year old ladies. or for that matter if it's Vivendi Universal or BMG or Sony who bought the rights to the copyright off the children of those now-dead 90 year-old ladies but still stand up demanding their 18 cents everytime it's played in a commercial setting.
yes it makes sense that you should get a living out of the works you produce, but frankly with patents and copyrights being given extensions time and again, these works are money-earning products so long past any human lifespan that the idea of the creator making a living from it has been lost. give them five years. give them twenty years. i think it's fair that a generation should pass before something enters the public domain (though it still seems too long).
the fact is that copyright has become an inalienable right to be greedy about some cute catchy riff that has all the weight or importance of that pothole i ran over yesterday. it protects the rights of singularly untalented people and defies the truth that some songs have been embraced and loved by humanity.
While you are somewhat right you are trying to define a logical layout to a technical issue. Even still things like email servers and DNS are all peer to peer. Printer and filer shares, not servers, are considered peer to peer. TCP/IP is a peer to peer protocol by design.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Would the photocopier have ever been made if the paper publishers had taken the line the RIAA and MPAA are taking now?
Would text scanners exist at all?
These both have infringing uses but they are not the subject of lobbying groups attempting to deny their very existance.
It is all about powerful lobby groups attempting to maintain their stranglehold on media creation and deny the people their voice. (Ok that is a little strong). It is about $$$$.