Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules against Grokster
furry_wookie writes "A few minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unaniumously against Grokster today. This ruling means that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the Internet. More info about the case here." That's not an entirely accurate statement -- what The Supremes said is that "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses." The promotion is the key part of that statement.
Update: 06/27 18:00 GMT by T : Reader SilentBob4 points out this interview with EFF attorney Wendy Seltzer on the decision.
Come on Hemos - we could have debated for hours about how the web itself is now banned by SCOTUS.
He's the first to blame for creating windows and making it possible to run programs on it that will allow for file swapping!
Irony: noun.
1. Calling the Supreme Court stupid in the same sentence in which you use "Imminent" when you mean "Eminent."
I use IE to do all my piracy, now they can finally have a legal leg to stand on to make MS get rid of the damn thing. After all, what other intent than downloading of (pirated) data could a browser have? Same goes with any P2P app, what other intent could it have, I ask?
-Jesse (please note the sarcasm, people)
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court even understanding what you just said, let alone give you a favorable ruling...
"The Supremes used to make sense."
I agree, "Baby Love" was a great song.
umop apisdn aw pow f,uop aseald
No! It's the fault of the recording industry for creating the content to be shared in the first place! Sue the RIAA! ...
Wait a second.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
The eminent domain ruling IS A BIG CHANGE. Before state/city/county/federal government could take your land IF IT WAS FOR A PUBLIC USE. Like a school or park or something that the government was developing.
What makes this decision insane is that now the state/city/county/federal government can take your land FOR ANY REASON. If they want to take your land (of course they 'reimburse' you for it) and sell/give it to a private company for development it os ok.
That is DIFFERENT AND BAD. If they want a bar/casino/whatever where your house is YOU WILL BE FORCED TO LEAVE. It is important to note who populates local government. Local community leaders. Think a Chaney/Haliburton relationship. If I own a local chain, I'm on local government and I want you to move; if I can convince my local buddies it is ok, you are gone.
In short it offers terrific opportunities for corruption.
If you want the ruling reversed (since the mostly liberal judges voted for it, mostly conservative judges against) all you'd have to do is get some right-wing nut-job local government, in Texas for example, to bulldoze all the Planned Parenthoods, and sell the land to gun dealers or churches. That might change the liberal judges minds a bit.
Unfortunately, it's not medical marijuana.
That's the ad I want to see!
A Prince Charles look a like (he'll be King one day) sauntering into the Massachusetts state house declaring that from now on erasers shall be called rubbers, color shall be spelled colour, and the coup de gras... that Carling Lager will be the new official drink of the state.
Suddenly, a drunken cry comes out of the crowd, and a Ted Kennedy look a like jumps up and fires off a few rounds from his .357 Smith and Wesson (yeah I know he's a US Senator, but I assume he would fly back home if the King of England was invading).
(start voice over) Smith & Wesson, keeping the King of England at bay for over 200 years.
A treat to eat, in a puppet that's neat!
"Rip. Mix. Burn."
Anyone think that Apple is going to regret that advertising slogan?
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Reminds me of one of those college party conventions...
"We can't advertise that we have beer, but we can advertise red cups, as long as we don't say that the red cups comes with beers."
Applied to P2P...
"We can't advertise that you can get copyrighted stuffs, but we can advertise p2p clients, as long as we don't say that the client can be used to download copyrighted stuffs."
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Three or four topics up, someone said that it was the "Yellow Journalists" that got it banned. Now you say it was the rope making industry. Which was it? You guys want a moment to get your stories stright?
Well yes, but besides that what has the U.S. ever done?
Fnord.
Currently yes, it is. And the reason is simple... it was recognized by our founders that it is essential to a democracy for the citizenry to be able to, if need be, defend themselves fromt he government.
Which just goes to show the founding fathers were high on something.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The enemies of Democracy are