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.
is that it wasn't even close. It was an unanimous ruling.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
the site's already slow with images, here's the link to the text version: http://pf.fastcompany.com/magazine/95/fast-talk-ex tra.html
They couldn't fix my brakes, so they made my horn louder.
Come on Hemos - we could have debated for hours about how the web itself is now banned by SCOTUS.
So if you write a p2p app and declare it to be content-neutral (i.e "I don't care what you use it for") is that "promoting infringing uses"? What if you put a lot of ads in it saying "Sharing copyrighted material is very, Very Naughty. Please don't do it." Would that get you off the hook?
Brian Smith "Jokers and aces, bruisy and blackfern" - Steve Kilbey, Day of the Dead.
How can they directly contradict a previous ruling? How is it possible that the constitution says one thing one day and another another day... Reform time? The supreme court is becoming more and more pointless every day IMHO....
After they started allowing cities to give away private property to corporate overlords, I don't think anybody should be surprised by this decision.
He's the first to blame for creating windows and making it possible to run programs on it that will allow for file swapping!
Except Grokster is open source. So let's say I'm using Grokster for some legal purpose, and I repackage and sell it as is legal under the GPL, and promote it myself promoting its legal purposes only. So, because OTHER PEOPLE promoted Grokster for illegal purposes, does that mean I can't distribute Grokster either? Or do they get nailed for promoting Grokster for illegal purposes and I get to keep doing my thing?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
this is a solid ruling, let's all of us produce the device we need, enjoy it for ourselves. Promoting it is another story.
Just maybe "proof of concept" will be the new way of telling everyone that it can be done
onepoint
if you see me, smile and say hello.
"Come use my software for only legitimate reasons"
See? Now I'm good.
Betamax was fun while it lasted.
-- This void intentionally left null.
It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the P2P companies. Although the ruling doesn't necessarily make them fair game, I'd be will to be that it leaves the door open enough that I fear a lot of them will think that it isn't worth the risk anymore.
Does this mean that gun companies can now be held accountable when third-parties commit crimes with a gun?
The EFF has an interesting response on the situation.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
That's the first step towards the out-and-out outlawing of all peer-to-peer programs that are not created by the copyright holder.... It's not hard to argue that BT or eMule or any of the others silently promote piracy.
Of course, this is not the end to piracy... just a new step...
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.
Promotion? How hard will it really be to prove "promotion" now for any product that has any ability to support illegal transfers of copyrighted materials?
Sad day.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I agree the that the Eminent Domain ruling was stuuuuupid, but this ruling makes sense. People can still develop products to be used legally. If they happen to be used illegally, so what? As long as they don't promote it as such, they're good to go, as was clarified by the editor. Read before you post.
.. which means that Hollywood should be liable for promoting the use of guns for killing people whenever they show guns being used for killing people ..
...
Now that is something I'd like to see
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I haven't seen the actual ruling yet....I'm not sure anyone has at this point. All we seem to know is that it was unanamous. Although it looks bad, it's hard to do too much speculating until we have some more details.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
I think the Supreme Court has made some really questionable decisions as of late. Precedent and politics rather than Constitutionality and liberty are the driving factors behind everything.
Thomas Jefferson opined in the Federalist Papers that we would not be in danger of losing our guaranteed liberties until all three branches of the government became united in their views and doctrines. It seems that we are moving in that direction, or perhaps we are already there.
I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.
AP has a story. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.
Now it is clear, it is legal to distribute a device to infringe copyright.
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. You can make the device, you just aren't allowed to actively benefit from its illegal use.
The interesting thing is that it appears that the protection of the betamax case has been removed when it comes to P2P. Some people think that this will open the floodgates of lawsuits regardless of whether something is advertised to having infringing value or not.
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12277
If they promote the software using things like "get w4r3z here", then they're 'telling' people to commit crimes
It's like if shops sold knives by using big posters with text like "Buy this knife and you can kill that annoying neighbour!"
by applying the same logic to gun sales, wouldn't that make gun distributors and/or manufacturers responsible to for all the deaths caused by guns?
They key is promotion? So i can create the next great filesharing app so long as on my website I don't promote using it to infringe on copyright? I still think that this ruling can be used against applications like Newsleecher. They do not promote copyright infringement but the vast majority of users are using it for that purpose. Its still a great application for retrieving freeware usenet binaries (trust me, they exist).
This is definitely the important part of this ruling. It's very obvious that Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire et al Truly exist on a userbase of copyright infringement. Not only does it exist and they take no official notice of it, but you can easily argue that the ONLY reason for owning a copy of any of those clients is for the explicit use of copyright infringement. You can say "P2P is noble" but you can't say that Kazaa is. Bittorrent is exactly the opposite, that is, many people do abuse the tool but it's primary use is legitimate. Anyone have usage statistics for legit/illegit uses? I move upwards of 50gb in legal material every month, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
While I was surprised by the 9-0 ruling, the end result isn't that shocking. Essentially, the Court ruled that, if you sell or market a product/service, and the key point of your marketing plan is that the product enables users to do something illegal, you can be held liable for the results of their actions.
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
or am I the only confused?
^(oo)^pig~
How are you supposed to read the minds of the developers to figure out if they "intended" to promote illegal use? Almost every designer of P2P software probably knew perfectly well that the service would be used to trade illegal copies, but they also believed that distribution of legal content is also something that would be promoted. Would it have to be "primary intent" to promote illegal use or just "secondary intent" is enough?
Also, in such "dual use" cases, it's strange to say that the service must be held liable only because the creator knew that illegal uses could be made of it and openly admitted it (equivalent to "promotion"). You end up cutting out all the legal uses too. This is the sort of "chilling efects" that we don't want to happen under the 1st Amendment.
I'd recommend you wait to read the ruling before pronouncing that it does not make sense. The question is legal in nature, and is not about whether P2P is legal -- read the updated header above!. After we RTFR we'll know what really happened.
As I mentioned in my submission a while ago (when the ruling broke on CNBC) that apparently got there right after this one:
This yanks the Betamx case from underneath Grokster, and forces a trail in the 9th circuit. Bascially, it gives the MPAA and RIAA a big biag hammer, and the only thign stopping is is the amount of money Grokster can spend at trial. This may bankrupt them, cause the cause te be decided by money, instead of a jury. And even then, an ignorant jury can issue some pretty bad verdicts.
Teh worst thing? Betamax no longer protects P2P - the Supremes have screwed the Betamax ruling over. Under thier ruling, the whole internet can be shut down and ISP's sued for infringement becuase they provide something that might be used for infringement.
What the hell is wrong with the courts? Its akin to convicting a woman of prostitution becasue she is "equipped" to commit the crime.
First the States rights are trampled in the Med Marijuana case, then the individual rights are trampled in the "Takings" case, now online rights are trashed in the Grokster case. The Supreme court needs to be reigned in. Or they are looking at triggereing a second American revolution.
Johnny, get your gun.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously 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.
... [t]here is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
From the AP wire: The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
And let it get processed by the courts. That seems to be the theme this year with the Justices, not giving any solid guidelines to help out, but allowing the courts to be used time and again for sorting this sort of thing out. Far be it from me to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it does seem reasonable to expect them to let the rest of us know how to make a legal judgement in this sort of thing.
Gun makers found not responsible for the illegal uses of their products, so long as their products aren't promoted with the intent to shoot someone.
What, like all the DC++ hubs with 5000 online users stating "this site is for friends and family only" or "This hub is provided as a public service for the purpose of chat and 'legal' file exchange"?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"
So unless you advertise that your service is useful for infringement OR you take steps to intentionally allow for infringement then this ruling doesn't affect you. That won't stop chicken little from posting that an FTP ban is around the corner though.
Basically what this does is make it so Hollywood can sue you and/or your company into the ground if it is capable of infringement based on this ruling. It doesnt matter what the legit use is, Hollywood has reasonable grounds to sue you and tie up your product in endless legal battles and force you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers before you can even sell your product. Goodbye two-guys-in-a-garage innovation, its now fenced off to those who can afford lots of lawyers.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
What does the court have to say for weapons (used by police, for example) which every year kill thousands of people in the USA alone? Oh, wait, human rights are not even close to be as important as copyright... May the USA keep being the world's top weapon exporter, god bless America!
I haven't read the decision (I still think very few to none of us have) so we don't know just how far it goes. It could only apply to P2P software, or it could be a total reversal of Betamax (thus perhaps applying to VCRs, CD-Rs, photocopiers, TCP-IP, and any number of other things.) Let's hope for the former.
I hate the one hundred and twenty character limit for signatures with an all-enveloping, all-destroying, incredible pass
I'm waiting to see the decision, but from the sound of it the Court did about as well as I could hope: rather than address the technology point, they addressed the business model. For now, it seems, Bram Cohen is safe.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"The Supremes used to make sense."
I agree, "Baby Love" was a great song.
umop apisdn aw pow f,uop aseald
"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.""
... is liable for the resulting acts of killing by third parties using the gun, regardless of the gun's lawful uses.
One who distributes a gun with the object of promoting its use to kill
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to break into your neighbor's house and take his stuff," I'd expect to get sued when it happens.
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to get back into your house or car when you've locked the keys inside," I'd expect protection from lawsuits.
At the same time, this makes the legal environment that technology producers have to deal with more unfriendly. Companies are going to start including DMA when they otherwise might not have, just to make sure they duck lawsuits. Copyright is good. But technology is more important than copyright. I don't like the idea of effectively suppressing technology to protect content producers.
Well, hopefully the chilling effect won't be that huge. Hopefully only egregious cases like Grokster will be seen in the courts. I'm holding my breath.
... such an objection?
Mad Penguin is running an interview with EFF attorney Wendy Seltzer. Good read.
"Any real techie knows that the majority of these clients are designed and created for the express purpose of sharing copyrighted material."
Yes, this is true, but the danger in this ruling is in just how it is determined if piracy was the intent of the developer or not. Who decides this, and how do they come to that decision? To say that software was not intended to promote piracy if "reasonable measures" are taken to prevent it is very, very vague at best. Has anyone actually laid down an official definition of what "reasonable measures" are?
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
This ruling is disastrous. Now the burden of proof will be upon "device" and software makers to establish that they are not promoting copyright infringement.
The abuse that will arise from this precedent will force Congress to pass laws to clarify copyright infringement, and I fear that they will be unduly influenced by corporate interests such as RIAA and MPAA, so the new laws will only reinforce draconian interpretations such as the one the Supreme Court has just made.
When will this madness cease?
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
This isn't over! Hopefully some "activist judge" will overrule it and....
Oh, wait. Crap.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
It's clear that there's just too much money at play here to play the new game by the old rules. That, and those justices probably don't know the first thing about filesharing.
However, there are tons of good non-'industry' musicians out there that love what the 'net is doing for music. If you don't like this ruling, buy their music and start supporting industry change. This isn't sticking it to the man or boycotting or anything. It's creating the new music industry. Simple as that. The old one just needs to go away.
Start at CDBaby, and go from there. You can also support the ones who spoke up for filesharing tech (as listed in the article).
There have been such cases where negligence can be proven on the part of the gun manufacturer or the owner of the store where the gun was sold. Normally, however, these suits are dismissed because they are suing the wrong person for a wrongful death suit.
To be blunt, if you're actively encouraging people to commit copyright infringement with your software, then you should be liable for infringement. It would be different if you were just writing software alone and not advertising about getting free music with it. You cannot encourage people to break the law and then shield yourself from the law, too. That's just not right. Now they'll sue the right people.
If you want to read more info about this case, the EFF has a large amount of information about it on their website.. There are copies of documents, filings, articles, press conference audio etc.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
I don't like the decision, but I see the logic.
Promoting your software as a way to grab unauthorized files is like promoting the knife or gun you're selling by saying it's great for mugging tourists. (No, it's not the same level of harm, so just take the analogy for what it's worth).
Promote the tool for its legal purposes, and what someone else does with it is not your problem. That's why gun and knife makers aren't liable for crimes committed with their products.
At least, not yet. This Court is doing some wacky things.
sigs, as if you care.
But lose the war.
Even though they won the Grokster decision, the language of the decision, from what I've read..they've actually given up the whole game. Because this makes innovation actually EASIER. It might even defang the DMCA..actually I suspect it will.
See, all you have to do is market it's non-infringing use. P2P software makers, just link to people hosting public domain and publicly released stuff. That DVD copy software, for example, that was shut down because of this probably would have a pretty damn good defense under this ruling.
So what is this going to do? It's going to increase the exposure or public domain/CC/whatever material, and do nothing to shut down most of the P2P networks out there.
It's so ironic it's beyond funny.
Copyright is no longer about progress in arts and science or even promoting progress. It's about maintaining dying business models and streghtening monopolies. I don't see how this ruling is even constitutional but I'm not a supreme court Judge.
Face it, corporate welfare is more important than progress.
There's an awful lot of legitimate software sharing, primarily large open-source or otherwise freely redistributable packages, over peer-to-peer networks... mainly bittorrent. Just follow slashdot for a while, just about any time a new release of something gets slashdotted, you get three posts right after each other: someone sets up a mirror, the mirror gets slashdotted so someone sets up a torrent, and then someone points out you can still get the original site through nyud.net.
On the other hand, I was absolutely amazed how long the original Napster was able to operate. The intent of the product was clearly to promote copyright violation, and to profit from them. The whole "pirate" theme from their logo on seemed like they were just begging to be prosecuted.
On the gripping hand, Grokster doesn't seem to be taking anything like the same kind of approach, so I'd like to see the basis of the decision that Grokster was distributing "a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright". I guess I'll have to wait until it's posted and/or transcribed.
Does this really matter? The answer is no. We all know this isint going to stop or even hinder most copywrite file sharing. It will just insure that all new programs will come with a disclamer saying that:
"this product is for the use of shareing files that are in no ways protected by any copywrite law. Any other use of this program is strictly prohibited."
This is just going to make program developers a bit more cautious and a bit more aware of the law.
Reality is a big nasty dragon. Fortunately I don't believe in dragons.
If I'm reading this correctly, ANY software that enables P2P Piracy is illegal. Windows file share with no Domain Controller would be P2P, correct?
2. The insane Eminent Domain ruling, making it a cinch for anyone to take anyone else's property, legally. Property rights no longer exist.
This state of affairs has been the case for many years. The ruling was a reaffirmation of the status quo. If you live in a state, city or county that can take land without review, be worried. I live in TN. All eminent domain attempts are subject to a jury trial. It is different from place to place.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Funny thing is this was unanimous. Not even 1 dissent. I wonder how much limitaiton this "intent" standard they imposed will have on P2P? Its apparently that some people used the infringing uses to "promote" the filesharing software that cause it to be kicked back to the lower court.
At least on the previous mess-ups this session of the Supreme Court, you could count on the "conservative" justices to disagree. The Medical Marijuana case they upheld states rights, and the Eminent Domain case they upheld individual rights.
This is so sad. It has me WANTING more "Strict Constitutionalist" judges on the court (like the ones GW Bush has in mind).
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
That's bullshit... that's like saying Smith and Wesson is liable for my illegal shooting spree (mass ass cap-busting). If we can't hold gun manufacturers liable for drive-bys, hold-ups, and freeway shootings, what then? I'm curious to know what benefits the judge or 'other related parties' are getting in return for this ruling.
Give them time. The only reason that the gun lobby is so strong is the current administration. Once they are out of the picture, (yeah...right...maybe in ten years), they will try and do the same thing to the gun manufacturers. "To protect the children!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
I don't think (not having read the whole ruling mind you) that it's that cut and dry.
What constitutes promoting? how is that defined? What if 3rd partys promote it as a tool with illegal uses?
I think it boils down to intent, which IANAL seems like it will require lawyers/courts to decide if someone "intends" (or promotes) their tool as having illegal uses.
*shrug* Just doesn't seem very clear/explicit to me.
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
...that promotes the illegality, and not the developer?
Is that sufficient for the *AA to sue the original developer?
I don't see how it can be, and therefore every P2P app is safe so long as the original developer isn't the one doing the promoting.
I must say, I don't particularly care for Grokster, Kaazaa, or any of the other businesses that try to make money through spyware, adware, trojans and the like.
... artists! Keep on sharing even as authority insults, threatens, and lies about you... even as lawmakers, school principals, and propagandists try to stop you ... even as some experts, some of your friends, and even the Supreme Court suprememly misunderstand you ... above all ... Keep Sharing!! :)
That said, I am truely impressed by the human spirit shown by P2P filetraders, Motivated by their love of art, by their love of disseminating their love, by their satisfaction with hooking people up, they are on the forefront of the Internet revolution -- bringing the ideal of making all human intellectual and creative expression available to all to fruition.
Keep on sharing, all you friendly, kind organizers and catalogers out there! Keep on sharing, you fanboys, critics, and experts! Keep on sharing, you compilers, re-editors, mash-uppers
The whole premise of why use freenet seems to be that the content you are communicating is illegal somewhere. The user makes the choice which country's laws he wants to circumvent.
It is illegal to publish, in the USA, for example, the purely-political works of an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner, which ban is just as unjustified as Chinese or Iranian censorships, and things keep getting worse here.
Censorship is government-sanctioned far more often than government-opposed. Freenent and so on exist to avoid censorship even if the uses happen to be legal in some countries. Censorship is also increasingly a function of DMCA, etc. Thus it is criminal to write software which promotes free speech?
This ruling is not consistent with their previous rulings on companies that produce firearms--who are not held responsible for the actions of their clientele.
You know...I'm not sure why this was modded as a troll. I mean, it is a bit strong...I'm not sure the EXPRESS purpose of these systems was piracy, but it does raise a valid point...do you really think the companies that write these programs don't know that their main use is for piracy? Public domain movies are hardly enough to sustain networks of this size.
I know the opinion is unpopular, and I'm not sure I agree with the ruling myself, but how did expressing your opinion and raising a valid and on-topic point suddenly warrent a troll moderation? This isn't being inflamatory, it's debating the points raised in the article. Personally, I thought these forums were meant for debate and discussion of BOTH sides of these stories. Disagree? use your words...not your mod points. Save the troll mods for people who are really making inflamatory / offensive etc. posts.
That's just my $0.02 though.
...no two people are not on fire.
*ANYTHING* can be used for illegal purposes..
I guess this is what you get for having a bunch of lawyers running the system.
Now pretty much anyone that makes anything can ( and will ) be sued. So much for the 'service economy', its now the 'litigious economy'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Funny, Grokster seems to think they won.... hrm this could get interesting
You joke and all, but this is the kind of thing I've always hoped to see from the editors of Slashdot. This story was submitted in such a fashion to (intentionally or not) start off a huge hysterical flamewar. Hemos actually did some quick research and posted accurate info on a very important case.
Two thumbs up for Hemos.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The promotion is the key part of that statement.
Kind of like the Comcast and Verizon commercials detailing how fast you can download movies and music.. The ruling did not really clear anything up or set any type of precident because the question of promotion and majority legal use would have to be determined by a long and drawn out court case and layers. This provides a definate advantage to those that can afford the litigation like the larger media organizations.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Absolutely the best weblog for supreme court coverage is the SCOTUS Blog, sponsored and operated by the DC law firm of Goldstein & Howe, who argue many cases in front of the supreme court. In addition to all the information you could need there is great legal commentary from many guest bloggers.
First off, the SC ruling is sending this case back to the appallete court to be ruled on again. Let's not forget that. The SC hasn't been willing to totally trample the Betamax decision, and from the way I am interpretting it, they are still upholding that decision. VCR's were never advertised as being able to copy the movies you rent, (sure, the video rental store had just started so, it wasn't really possible). If you remember back when these programs first started, they did pretty blatently advertise their illegal usage ability. From what the SC is saying here so far, that is what got them in trouble. Programs like BT have never pushed the idea that you can illegally d/l with it. That puts them back inline with the Betamax ruling. So now the appallette court has to go back and look at Grokster's intent. Law is about motive and intent, well on the criminal side. While this is bad for Grokster, and a few others out there, I don't see this as a blanket kill shot for P2P, and in fact, I see this as a blanket protection, for some current, and future P2P programs, but a few of the older ones, are left flapping in the breeze. The court has now told all of you developers how to protect yourself in the future. Be very explicit in stating your views in the perspective use of your P2P program, and that you are against breaking the law, and you have not shown that you intend to do so. Therefore, you get Betamax at your back. my $.02, I've been wrong before.
To use an analogy: I can sell guns. I just can't sell them with a slogan like "Number 1 tool for killing your ex-wife!" And I can't sell a P2P app named "Most efficient piracy software for pr0n and anime!" But the technology is safe.
This is good because it means The Supreme Court found a way to see through the jerks who are abusing this stuff without stifling innovation.
First of all - knowing the public uses the software illegally, in general, does not mean that Grokster knows WHO uses it specifically. The reason this is important is because this ruling will eliminate legal uses arbitrarily to stop illegal use.
Essentially, to use a metaphor here, the ruling prevents car manufacturers to sell cars in order to prevent common illegal activities done with cars (speeding).
There is a difference between general illegal use, and specific. In other words, if Toyata sells you a car knowing that you plan to run someone over with it, they can be liable. But, they cannot be liable by selling cars knowing that someoen out there will use it to run someone else over. ie - you cannot outlaw something to prevent a fairly common, albeit unpredectable action.
Bram Cohen is not guilty. Tim Berners-Lee is not guilty. Settle down.
Read the opinion.
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.
In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.
MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.
So the gun companies are responsible for all the deaths that have happend? Because I am pretty sure there are not many ways to promote a gun other then to kill people.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
No, it's not Windows fault (although generally everything else is). The fault is with the ISPs that allow computers to conect to each other in the first place. Sue the ISPs!
From the Yahoo Article, this sends the case back to the appeals court that ruled in favor of Grokster, stating that there is enough evidence for the trial to proceed.
The fat lady has not yet sung!
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
This is why firearms manufacturers and the NRA are very careful to use the words "defense" and "protection" as often as possible in their arguments, e.g.: Guns are for self-defense. Defend your home and your family.
File-sharing services seemed to deliberately take the opposite approach: they are a mechanism for cirumventing copyright. They weren't promoting Fair Use, like sharing your own music files from home to work for your own casual listening. They were promoting the copying of copyrighted material to other users without paying the requisite royalities.
The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.
But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
Damn. I knew the twelve signs of the end of the world were missing something.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
Now when the RIAA tries to sue individuals, they can honestly and legaly claim that they're not liable for the infringement, instead Kazaa, grokster, napster, etc.. is. Even better if the company that made the sofware and promoted it for piracy is located outside of the US. Major copyright loophole!
- The Opinion of the Court, but Justice Souter.
- The Concurrence of Justice Ginsburg, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy.
- The Concurrence of Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor.
Starting to readWhile you are right, morally, its not how it works.
There *was* a bill out there to prevent the insane lawsuits aimed at gun manufacturers just for this reason. It died.
Since the anti freedom people cant get rid of the 2nd amendment totally, the new plan was to sue the manufactures out of existance.
This 'ruling' will only help support that 'cause' too.
Next we will have suits against Ford, since their SUV's can be use to haul drugs.. And we have to 'protect the children, right?'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Firearms dealers are licensed. If you are advertising your firearms as "a great way to make sure mugging victims don't identify you in a lineup!" I'm pretty sure they're going to yank your license, and in all likelihood you've run afoul of some agreement you signed when you got your license. And they may well charge you with conspiracy or with being an accessory.
Software dealers and manufacturers are unlicensed, as are the makers of knives and lengths of pipe, so it's actually a different kettle of fish. But in general participating in a crime, as a consiprator or accessory, though the details vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Specifically advertising your participation in a criminal act is therefore a bad idea.
People don't develop products to be used legally/non-legally, they develop products period.
You can use Grokster, your VCR, DVD-RW, 9MM pistol, baseball bat, soup ladle, or cigarette lighter for either legal or illegal purposes. That doesn't mean that poorly-thought out advertising or promotions should make those *products* illegal.
The Supreme court doesn't need to get involved in telling software developers that they can't create some specific kind of software *if* it's marketed a certain way.
The place where the legal system comes in is when somebody illegally provides a copyrighted work to somebody else. That person (and not the software developer) is guilty of a crime. The reason that this case was brought is that prosecuting individual people is time consuming, more expensive than letting things go, and generally hard to sell to the public in a good light. Throw into the mix the fact that the **AA is getting started with competing, paid-for services, and this is more a business move than a legal move.
The editor's clarification is unhelpful in that it draws the reader away from the point. The court said "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright...". I, for one, find that part of the decision disturbing, and not a qualifier for minimizing the impact of the ruling.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
And what, exactly, does promotion consist of?
This sort of subjectivity is destroying our legal system.
... like armor peircing "cop killer" bullets???
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Opinion by Justice Souter: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZO.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Ginsberg:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC.pdf
Concurrence by Justice Breyer:
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Way to completely misread the ruling. What they are saying is if you market a product based on its ability to share illegal files then you are libel for people sharing illegal files. However if you market a file sharing product based on its many legal uses and stay the hell away from illegal file sharing then you are fine.
As to the eminent domain issue, councils and governments have always had the power to aquire property at market value, nothing new or controversial here.
This is bullshit!
The lower courts reasoned that, like VCRs, the file-sharing software can be used for "substantial" legal purposes, such as giving away free songs, free software or government documents. They also said the file-sharing services were not legally responsible because they don't have central servers pointing users to copyright material.
But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.
So the Supreme court didn't actually draw the line, they didn't find Grokster guilty of anything, all they did was take away the Betamax "Get Out Of Jail Free" card and toss the actual decision back to a lower court.
The problem is that if you DO stand up in this day and age, you likely risk being jailed ( err 'detained' ), or sued into oblivion.
Being on the right side of things doesnt matter anymore.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... Unanium is some sort of transuranic element isn't it? :-)
All you people should quit bitching about SCOTUS trying to take away your rights. If you read the ruling, you'll see that the SCOTUS is spot on. They give explicit examples that Grokster and StreamCast had built their business models on pirating content. They essentially say 'you can't hide behind the betamax ruling when you are obviously trying to make money off of other people pirating'.
Here is the key statement in the ruling:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment
Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free
software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients
use it to download copyrighted works, and each took
active steps to encourage infringement.
Doesn't this make Web Browsers illegal now? - since I can download media from through them, and the P2P programs are no different than a glorified web browser with a different interface.
Stupid idiots...I can't believe that the Supreme Court could be bought...there is not other explanation for this stupidity.
These Supremes answered the wrong question. They were asked to validate or repudiate the lower court's opinion. Which was that when Grokster does not promote criminal use, the software has has "substantial legal use", Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user. And, by extension, neither can any other provider of software meeting those conditions. The lower Grokster decision did not explicitly state that Grokster must not promote criminal use, though that seems implicit in "has substantial legal use", when such a condition is nowhere mentioned explicitly. You know, like how "possession of encryption implies criminal intent".
I suppose that Grokster also must not "force users to commit crimes, including at gunpoint or through hostages or nuclear blackmail", but the Supremes did leave us all thrashing in ignorance of that detail. Likewise, we still can't be sure that Grokster can avoid liability when they do not promote crime, because we can only infer that state - which costs a lot of money for lawyers to do, with Hollywood now making an industry out of propagandizing that implication.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable, because it did not promote criminal use. Then MGM will take the case back to the Supremes (the 2008 remix). And perhaps the Supremes will reject hearing the new case, having heard it already. Then, like the Schiavos, MGM will keep their case under reconsideration for years. Grokster and the rest of us in the lower courts will spend a lot of money defending under this ambiguous ruling, and the entire P2P and streaming industries, not to mention software in general, will operate under the uncertainty that an ax could fall on our necks any June for the next decade. Thanks, you cranky ancient prima donnas with lifetime immunity from accountability! The rest of us have to live with your work for our entire lives, without that guaranteed paycheck. We really spend a lot of money on these Supreme Court justices, for them to produce such a shabby product.
Now, on the heels of that blatantly criminal "eminent domain" ruling, Conservatives will be screaming for new Supremes who "respect property rights" and "hold individuals responsible for their actions". When Bush appoints the most corporate Supremes we can imagine, and puts Clarence Thomas in charge of the court, we'll be stuck with the most corporate court ever, with the most corporate Congress ever, and the most corporate White House possible. Unless Democrats can take back the House and Senate next year, and deliver at least some of the competition with teeth that checks and balances our mechanical government, this country is doomed. And everyone else within its reach - which means everyone else. Funny how that particular blockbuster movie won't be coming out of MGM studios this Summer.
--
make install -not war
Can someone show me an example of where Grokster was promoting their software as a piracy tool? Looking at Grokster's web site they don't seem to be doing that. Did they change their face in light of the court case?
I have to agree with this ruling even though XEROX may not have been able to pass the smell test.
Clearly XEROX purpose in building a copier was so that people can make legitimate copies of documents.
In the digital world this also can be the objective of file sharing. Please have a look at www.irtc.org
We are now at the point where individuals and groups can create their own copyrighted material. IE. We don't need hollywood or the RIAA. A for instance is the Greatful Dead would gladly have glombed on to a system that file shares.
So - I do not see this ruling as being much of a problem.
I
how did expressing your opinion and raising a valid and on-topic point suddenly warrent a troll moderation?
:)
:)
Welcome to slashdot.
I don't agree with the OP's reasoning, obviously, but it's amazing how little it takes to get a "Troll" mod around here. The real trick is managing to get multiple "Troll" and "Interesting" or even "Insightful". If you can manage that, you're ready to take on Kipling's "If"...
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
> promoting its use to DO BODILY HARM
... is liable for the resulting acts of CRIME by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Nope, because it's not illegal to do bodily harm. Self-defense may require it. Police and security personnel, and the municipalities that procure them their weapons, could be properly lured by advertisements that promised "bodily harm". But try this out:
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to COMMIT A CRIME
Make sense now? Once you read it that way, it makes a lot more sense. If I sell you something by saying it will let you break the law, then I can't fall back on its lawful uses once you use it the way I said you should.
Expect an impact on the makers of "radar" detectors.
sigs, as if you care.
The way I read Souter's opinion, he feels that:
Sony is often interpreted as:"Substantial non-infringing uses are an automatic off the hook. for contributory infringement."
But what it really should be is: "The existence of non-infringing uses is just one piece of evidence you can use to try to determine whether a 'conspiracy to commit copyright infringement' occured. But you can also look at whether the company intended, from day one, to be a tool for infringment.
A quote from Souter's opinion:
"Of course, in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a
holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor."
---
So, I _think_ we're okay. If it really was designed from day one to be a content-neutral system like http or ftp, then no problem. But if you actively marketed to copyright infringers, you can't just use Sony as a "get out of jail free" card.
I'd have prefered a "Yay free speech, down with copyright" opinion myself, but it's not as bad as it could be.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.p df
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
It was on-topic, and if you had something to say, you had the opportunity to do so. Instead you moderated overrated even though it had not previously been moderated at all. This type of behavior makes Slashdot truly suck.
The final nail has been driven in to the coffin of Fair use.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
"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," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
Someone should sue the RIAA for "distributing" CD's and DVD's because they are "devices" also used by computers. Because they are used by computers too it makes them very easy to copy and "infringe copyright." Because it is so easy to copy they might as well be "promoting" its illegal use.
cf
Suppose I design a P2P service for music where I share content that I have legally acquired. I share song XYZ to the world, along with a number of other people who happen to own and share the same song.
So there are n legal copies being shared. If a user wants to play song XYZ they scan the P2P network for a copy not in use, if they find one, they lock it so that no one else including the owner can play it, they listen to it and then the file is unlocked for further use.
If there are n copies in use then the request is denied.
Hypothetically, would that be legal? or more legal or (in a miracle max voice) "mostly legal"?
Back when I lived in Port Huron, the city used eminent domain to kick out and bulldoze a small neighborhood despite protests and lawsuits from those targetted for removal. Sadly for them, the suits were decided in the city's favor and since the families there had no money to take it further, they had to move. I was thinking at the time that it was sad for them, but at least they would be able to put the land to public use, like a park or something. After all, isn't that what 'eminent domain' is supposed to be for? Nope! These asswipes bulldozed over a neighborhood of poor people just so they can put up fucking condominiums. That's right. They kicked out the poor people purely for the benefit of the rich, and that's all there is to it. However, this didn't happen recently, this happened about 10 years ago iirc. All the Supreme Court did there was to uphold the status quo and let eminent domain abuses continue to run rampant, and the common man gets bent over and reamed again. (sigh)
You can still have P2P software. You can still have your replayTV, or VCR. All of these things are more can still be sold if two conditions are met. 1) The product has a legal use. 2) the product is not promoted for being used illigally (Even if it ends up being). Grocksters problem is going to be that they said 'hey come and steal songs here' which I always thought was completely stupid.
At least this will mean more people will use public transportation.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
The Christian Coalition thinks Grokster is about kiddie porn.
Seriously
It seems that this ruling is less about technology and more about the application of it. Presumably, you could have two P2P networks, running on identical software, with one running afoul of the law and the other one being clean based on how the software is promoted.
:)
If you had a P2P network that you marketed as a way to get movies and music for free, you'd be in trouble. If you marketed it as a way for independent bands and musicians to distribute their art, you would probably be okay. Theoretically that could be the exact same software and it would mostly come down to how it was promoted.
There's nothing in this ruling that suggests a network must actively attempt to inhibit copyright infringement, it just cannot promote it. So then if you set up your network to be for independent artists to distribute legitimate works and some folks then used it for distributing illegal stuff, you should also have a defense.
I like the SCOTUS because they seem to be the last branch of government that routinely comes out with wise decisions
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
So let's make a case study of eMule. If someone -- not an original eMule developer -- posts a message linking to the eMule source, saying "you can share files for free on this network, potentially including copyrighted material," are they now liable? It hardly seems that they should be, and yet Grokster's promotional campaign hardly extended past this level.
More dangerously, can this argument be extended to other areas of traditionally protected speech, like, for instance, security researchers trading information and exploits that could potentially be used to cause damage to computer systems?
Sounds great... it's not okay for gun salesmen to encourage the use of thier product to kill people. It's not okay for P2P client distributors/developers to promote their use to obtain data illegaly.
Get real!
in the US of A the copyright of a company (=compaign donor) is higher valued than the life of people.
There are more laws to protect companies from people than to protect people from companies.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
During prohibition people were allowed to make "near beer". That is beer with less than 0.5 percent alcohol. The recipe for it gave explicit instructions on what not to do because if you did you would be making something illegal.
Like prohibition this ruling will be just as effective. Oh, well. America already has two million people in jail. Why not throw a few million more behind bars? We aren't the worst, but it's nothing to be proud of.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
The reason being is? The reason being is? Bad monkey. No banana.
I just find it amazing. For years people made their own music with instruments of their own creation. Then some people got together and created a way to record music and sell it, and now suddenly leaches such as yourself feel you have a right to take their product for free.
The moral of the story being... You would not even want their product if it wasn't for the fact that they put the time and effort in to market the damn thing.
Go make yourself a drum and create your own music. You don't need the product they offer. You just think you do because you are a sheeple.
"We want to share our source code, our free compositions, our works, our demos..... costlessly and efficiently."
We can't accuse somebody for what others do with is work if you don't know what was its intentions at the beginning. And even if you know, you can't accuse "because you're sure its intentions are bad!"
.... when people are not required to be responsible to their own action. If I slips, just blame the landlord there are no sign to warn me of being slippy. If I steal software, just blame the company who made those software available to me!
The entire system just sorta... fail when people don't need to be responsible.
Every single car made and sold in the USA can exceed the posted speed limit in every state. Car manufactors readily post the performacnce numbers and brag about the speed and power of the cars. More often then not they also have a commercials showing the car and driver doing something that would be illegal on any public road anywhere in the US. Zoom Zoom Zoom, the Mustang driver with a frozen smile, WRX on a winding road, a Dodge hemi pickup truck street racing an old Plymouth Duster, a Cadillac flying around and bragging about the low 0-60 time. The list goes on and on. Bottom line? The person using the car is responsible for any illegal actions they take while driving those cars, not the manufactor. How many people are buying these cars only to drive them on a track where they may hit the 186mph electronic speed limiter?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I mean, come on, it was going to happen sooner or later. It would take more than just ingenuity to think that eventually a ruling might show up saying that it's "ok", or that they'd turn a blind eye to it forever.
In my opinion, this ruling might even be beneficial to stir up discussion about how the world of file-sharing will be addressed in the future. It's equally silly to think that they can just keep banning things forever and a well-defined separation line might give a boost to formalizing the legality of certain file-types and encouraging the widespread acknowledgement and proliferation of systems such as GPL.
Of course you won't be able to watch movies for free while someone else is paying for them, but maybe you'll be able to protect the things you can do for free in a much more solid, institutionalized way. Use your legal system wisely. It's there to help you, not as some dark, mindlessly antagonic villain.
Very clever! At first I thought it was rot13 - took me a minute to realize what it was. :)
Or pdf actually
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
involve a 9mm semi-automatic.
Some people need to use a bit more common sense. Sure, you *can* download legal things from Kazaa and what-have-you. But come on people, its OBVIOUS that legal downloading is not the purpose for which Kazaa was built or intended.
Stop with the comparisons. The legal uses of Xerox machines and web browsers far out number their illegal uses. Just because you *can* copy a book with a copy machine doesn't mean that copying books was the intended purpose. Take the time to step back from the picture and view the situation with the Lens of Common Sense for a moment before crying bloody murder.
So, let me get this straight, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the creator of the device promotes the ILLEGAL uses of the product or device, then the creator of the device is at fault, despite the potential legal uses of the device.
So, this is the difference between "escort/massage" and "whore"?
So, nothing new under the sun, essentially.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
:)
In the very near future, you'll see companies begin to develop and push P2P as a way for people to publish/distribute their own content. The whole podcasting thing is what will make this happen. And with people starting to push into the video realm (Systm, etc) , this will become the defense of the next P2P battle.
Think about it: Somebody creates a client that can grab RSS, publish RSS, share content via BitTorrent/DHT, get content via same, play video/audio/everything under the sun, and integrates into MythTV just for good measure.
The primary, stated, purpose of such a thing is to let people download the free content online and watch it on their spiffy PVR box.
The actual primary use would be to download TV shows and movies and such from other users of the software, using the BitTorrent capabilities inherent in the software (although video-blog type RSS feeds would be in second or third place).
In any case, the revolution will be podcasted.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Really this is an understandable ruling. As much as I'm still pissed at SCOTUS about Kelo v New London, this one actually makes some sense.
It's all about "substantial noninfringing use". Filesharing is still okay but a product whose "substantial noninfringing use" is sharing of illegal files is okay. If someone figures out a way to share files illegally over iTunes, iTunes is still legal. Same with Tivo.
I'm not so sure about Bittorrent though.
I'll have to read the decision tonight when I have more time and I don't have a dead server.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Lessee... In the last 24 hours
1. Innovation and development of Internet products in America has been stifled, and the future of such products thrown into doubt by the Supreme Courts decisions. Why develop a better Bit Torrent (or whatever) in this country, when you can now be taken to court by very deep pocketed companies who have nothing better to do that sue you into bankruptcy, based on this ruling?
2. The Supreme Court has also managed to further protect the bacon by making it so that cops can't be sued based on how poorly they enforce, or fail to protect people with restraining orders. So, for existence, your sister gets a restraining order against her ex-husband, and as she's on the phone calling for help, as the cops haven't responded to her first two calls, her ex shoots her.
Well... You can no longer blame the cops for this, which IMHO makes restraining orders completely useless. If there's no ramifications to them when they don't enforce these orders, what's the point in having them? There's now 0 incentive for cops to drop their donuts and do their duty, when it comes to victims of stalking and such. What are you going to do about it? Can't sue them into doing their job... Might as well buy a gun and protect yourself if you're in such a position, as there's no guarantee that a restraining order will help in any way.
Of course, if you're rich, and have the influence to affect future police funding, and/or influence public opinion, you're almost guaranteed that the cops will be very vigilant in protecting you. It's the average person who loses out here.
3. Cable companies no longer have to share their lines. On one hand this may mean more services from them for slightly less money. On the more realistic side, it means less options for you, the consumer, if the cable company decides to go the other way and raise your rates. Ain't it funny how so many of the decisions since Bush took office favor big business, and lock out the little guys?
4. Reporters can no longer protect their sources due to anotehr ruling today. They can, but they'll face jail time. In the long run this'll mean less people will come forward with info on wrongdoing's, which means big money gets away with more illegal activities....
5. And finally, let's not forget last weeks shit ruling wherein Walmart, Target, and any other retailer now can, or at least has the potential to take your house and land away from your in order to build more stores, in order to make themselves richer.
Yes, you'll be compensated if this happens, but that does nothing to help those who don't want to be displaced. It also means that any compensation received is at a government-set level. The same government who gives all kinds of tax breaks an incentives to such business's to get them to move into your neighborhood in the 1st place.
Seriously... Dickhead Bush and his money-mongering ilk are taking away our freedoms and liberties, not to mention our loved ones via his vendetta against Iraq, while he and his cronies grow fatter and richer.
I'm not one to really point fingers and go on about politics, but America is quickly losing everything that made us a superpower. At this rate, we will soon have a very rich, ruling elite, while the average person lives in rented propertys supporting them. Meanwhile tomorrows technological advances, and the money and power that goes with such things, will be coming from places such as China and India, which coincidentally are becoming superpowers due to all the money and business we're giving them.
In essence, we are funding our own demise, while the Bush's, and the Walmarts of the world kick back and fund more laws which limit our freedoms, while expanding their interests. Sad times indeed...
When a court cites "common law", they're saying that the principle is so well defined that they won't bother listing the case that set it, or in fact, that the origin is lost in antiquity. They might as well say, "This principle should be obvious to anyone".
I think it was so obvious that the lower courts just missed it, getting lost in the argument about the copying VCR tapes. I know I did.
Your examples with guns, crowbars, and head shops are all illustrations of the disastrous results that would have occurred had they ruled that the maker of a device is always liable for its misuse.
sigs, as if you care.
hm. so if Windows promotes its file-sharing abilities (which it has done since the days of Windows for Workgroups 3.11) it should be liable if people use those capabilities for copyright infringement?
MORTAR COMBAT!
1. Grokster/Streamcast use ads to generate revenue, more p2p traffic means more revenue.
2. Knowing #1, the companies promoted their software as a "Napster alternative" to get more people to use it knowing full well that Napster was ruled illegal.
That's strike 1; promoting your product for illegal use.
3. Grokster/Streamcast are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files, although the decentralized networks do not reveal which files are copied, and when. Grokster/Streamcast have sometimes learned about the infringement directly when users have e-mailed questions regarding copyrighted works, and Grokster/Streamcast have replied with guidance.
The nail in the coffin: Providing tech support on how to infringe on copyrights.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Eminent domain is supposed to be used to take private property for public uses, like a park, highway, courthouse, and stuff like that to solve the 'Not in my Backyard' problem. It's not for kicking people out of their homes for the purpose of putting up condominiums and country clubs for the rich! I don't have a problem with the former, but I do have a major problem with the latter. How would you feel if you were poor and the city took your property for a pittance and put up condos in it's place? Would you not be royally pissed off at that? Surely I'd be pissed as it is if I was being kicked out, but at least if they put up a park or a highway in it's place, it would improve the city as a whole and I could get some use out of it back. However, if they just take private property simply to kick people out, and then put up condos, then it really becomes nothing more than legalized property theft imo.
The actual text of the ruling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-480
I just finished reading the majority ruling, and came back to Slashdot to see whether folks recognized that the ruling wasn't that bad. I'm happy to see that most of the high-rated posts recognize that this ruling is about inducing illegal activity, not about creating software that has a potential illegal use. They took pains to keep the Sony Betamax ruling intact.
Three more good points on that:
- The SCOTUS specifically declined to say that the 10% of legit use was insufficient to prove a lack of legitimate usage.
- Lower courts are prohibited from determining that software creators are liable SOLELY based on the design of the software. I think this is good for software that includes IP blockers. This ruling says it only becomes illegal when you name it "RIAA blocker".
- Footnote 12 - "a court would be unable to find...liability merely based on a failure to take...steps to prevent infringement [by end users]." Meaning P2P devs can't get sued because they refuse to put in "features" to detect illegal downloads.
All in all, not too bad. Could've been much worse. I'm guessing that some of the concurring opinions might be worse, but I can live with that.
I can't believe the justices were this stupid. So are there going to be lawsuits against the makers or cd burners then? I'm completely disappointed.
There is nothing illegal, in the west anyway, in building and selling photocopiers that can make photocopies. However, if we promoted these machines as ideal for users to automatically copy and reproduce "copyrighted books" in mass quantities, that would be an illegal use of the photocopier machine. I think that publishers would rightly complain of such a promotion. While photocopiers may indeed be used for illegal purposes as well as legal purposes, promoting the illegal purpose does indeed seem to make the producer an accomplice to the crime even though the maker and distributer of the photocopier has no control over which books that one will use the photocopier to infringe the copyrights to. Doublezz
I've considered getting a semi-automatic for hunting. Last time I was hunting I was unable to shoot at a deer because it was behind me. A pistol would have allowed me a safe shot, where I couldn't move my longer rifle into position. (I tried, but the deer spooked when I made just a little too much noise) This deer was not far from my stand.
Shooting a pistol at a target is fun. I have done it was a 9mm, and can report that it takes far more skill than a .22 pistol.
Could someone with a legal background please explain what the fallout is going to be against other device manufacturers, such as the VCR, Tivo, iPod, etc.?
On its face, it looks to me like this overturns Betamax, but I'm hoping that it's not as broad as all that.
That green slime had it coming.
Bravo. What is it with our culture now? Making mature, considered decisions about something, decisions that require other parties to consider them outside the world of newsbites and so on, is now considered a sign of weakness, is it?!?
A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.
The Supreme Court, for all the current right-wing majority's nascent authoritarian learnings, is not in the business of sweeping decisions that reach far beyond the cases brought before them. Their 10 Commandments decision's coming up, and they're not going to be extending it to cover "In God We Trust" and evolution in schools just because they want to take a stand. There's a process, and it's not weak or waffly to follow it.
How mature are we, anyway?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
A key question is how the ruling guides Hollywood's legal strategy in trying to halt piracy via P2P Networks. The ruling seems to make it easier for RIAA/MPAA to tie up developers of P2P software in lengthy court battles, which now have to be fought on the specifics of how a product is marketed and used, rather than the liability for piracy resting with the end-user infringer. It looks like the Supreme Court has handed Hollywood a club, and they've shown their willingness to use it.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
Malarky.
Do auto manufacturers promote their cars as get-away vehicles? No.
Do file sharing networks openly promote their use for trading illegal files? Yes.
A vast gulf divides creating products that can be used for criminal activity, and designing products for crime.
All about me
This just further proves that the RIAA/MPA are going after the wrong people.
The supremes have basically now set in stone what makers of p2p software need to do, or rather what not to do in order to avoid legal heat. It may seem like a big kick in the face to the RIAA/MPA but really it's just saying, hey, you tried it with betamax and you lost, you are going to lose here as well. I'm glad we can put this behind us now and the RIAA/MPA can go back to suing the actual infringers, you know... the 7 year old girls and 89 year old grandparents's.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
None of that should be news to anyone. The *AA folks aren't going to sue you unless they have a chance to win.
sigs, as if you care.
Heh - we should all start promoting Windows File Share as a P2P method for copyright infringement. It would be interesting to watch Microsoft squirm out of that one... :)
1) Take GPL source code for P2P software
2) Add code to detect and block industry-marked pirated items, e.g. watermark-detection etc.
3) Market it as a Linux distribution tool
4) PROFIT off of the advertising
Meanwhile, others, acting independently, write a makefile modification to disable the watermark-detection. Overseas distrubitors give away precompiled binaries.
To protect it's legal stance, step 5 may be necessary:
5) file lawsuits against overseas vendors, knowing good and well the default judgement you get will be unenforceable
The bottom line:
This ruling won't kill off P2P software, it will only change the way in which it is distributed.
Wink-wink-nudge-nudge-know-what-I-mean.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Because if they didn't gun makers, knife makers, screwdriver makers, car makers, etc., would all be liable for any deaths involved with the use of their product.
Rick B.
It seems that Limewire's GUI is specifically developed in a way that infringes the ruling. But I could be wrong - I'm not sure -
Perhaps my esteemed colleagues here on slashdot can discuss if this impacts the future of Limewire?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
This evidence of intent to profit from infringement seems to be what lost the case for them.
Suppose for example grokster distributes a filesharing product and advertises one time that it can be used to copy music. My question is, what is the crime?
I suppose it is inducement to commit copyright infrigement, but the case says they are liable for what their users do with the software so that can't be it since they would be liable regardless of whether users were actually induced or not. So they must be liable as an accessory before the fact for each instance of users violating copyright with the software.
The problem I have with this decision is that for one action grokster is apparently committing new crimes (civil or criminal) without doing anything more. This could go on basically forever. In my mind it's roughly equivalent to some Joe Worker tripping and hitting a switch at some refinery that causes an explosion killing 1000 people. Under the current system he can be tried 1000 times, each time arguing that he did it intentionally. Seems like a violation of double jeopardy to me, that the DA can roll the dice over and over until some retarded jury finally convicts the guy or he loses 1000 times. That's how it is, but it doesn't seem right. To me it's mostly the same issue: one act but can be tried any number of times.
The company should really be found guilty of creating or distributing a filesharing product, but these things are not illegal afaik.
The big plus comming out of this is precident. We now have a new standard as to what is legal and what is not legal.
Don't promote your product as an alternative to another product that was successfully sued (Napster).
Don't provide a special function to find copyrighted materials (Top 40 songs).
Don't send out newsletters listing copyrighted materials that are available.
When a user contacts you, asking how they can get copyrighted materials, don't help them...
Don't actively block (the IP addresses of) groups that are trying to monitor illegal activities. (Is it okay if they are distributing fake files? No idea.)
Do not put yourself in a position to directly profit from your product's illegal uses (ad views, product sales, etc).
The Supreme Court was rather clear that it was their active involvement and promotion of copyright infringement that is the issue, and this does not change the Betamax standard. It seems all too easy, though, to be in violation of several of these rules, without any criminal intent. If I was selling a popular commercial FTP program, I would get nervous right about now.
One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the deviceís lawful uses. Pp. 10ñ24.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Nice sig. The strange thing is, for a while I could read it but couldn't tell _why_ I could read it.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
And why should they? The court's role is to decide a specific quandary based on existing law, prior precedents, big ideas, and common sense, not to decide in general what's illegal and what's not. It's not the Supreme Court's job to decide en masse the legality of everything imaginable all at once.
In this case, they were in a asked to consider whether developers of a p2p client can be held accountable for illegal usage, and the answer was, yes, if they promote it for that purpose.
You want a complete law laid out describing what p2p activity is legal and what's not, petition your congressmen to formulate such laws, and the SCotUS will make decisions based on those new laws. That's what the congress is there for: making laws.
Better yet, let's all petition our congressmen. Instead of sitting around waiting for some organization or another to inform us what's illegal, why don't we, the people, decide what's illegal. I know, it's a funny idea that we get to decide how our country is run instead of "the government", but I'd like to give it a try one of these days.
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.
Is Kucinich running in 2008?? :O
Interesting that the court choose to use the word "promote" in its decision - because it has two not-fully-congruent meanings in the English language. One would be in the sense of "Advertise" - that is, "use our software and steal songs!!". The other meaning of promote means "to assist" or "to allow/make possible", "to help bring into being" - for example, "some tax policies are designed to promote public investment".
Hence, in the second sense, they did answer the real question in front of them - and ruled more strongly in opposition to grokster. In that sense, its software does "promote" - that is, makes easier or makes more possible - the sharing of copyright-violating content.
I haven't finished reading all the posts but, most of them so far have missed the point. The point is "Internet file-trading networks can be held liable when their users copy music, movies and other protected works without permission" There is no mention of code unless it is specifically used to perform such task and is advertised as such. The real question is "Now this hurdle has been leaped. What keeps ALL ISP's from now censoring their traffic?? Could this be the start of a legal police state OR the end of Porn and Spam as we know it?
Both supreme court rulings made me think of an old suck.com article - I found it and it's still surprisingly relevant (though pretty hard on us "tech" people).
"Downtime by Law"
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/
My favorite quote (even as it makes me cringe): "But the blind narcissism that leads geeks to confuse 'can be done' with 'will be allowed' is disastrously naive."
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
[1] Notably, they cite Linux.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I was intrigued by the Court's interest in the "easily implemented measures to prevent unlawful uses." That really sort of makes sense when you think about it. I'm not responsible for everything that happens on my land, but I'm required to take reasonable steps to stop unreasonable harm. I wonder if ISPs will required to take "reasonable steps" to prevent child porn, or spam, or risk liability under the reasoning of this decision? Tj
Read comment #119, which starts at "This is now officially the Anti-Liberty Court."
Quoting the Freepers only displays your ignorance.
Target shooting is an olympic sport.
Hunting is what kept generations of mankind fed.
And 'shooting people' can be done legally ( and morally ) when you are protecting yourself or your family.
Sure, they can be used improperly too. Those people should be punished. But not law abiding people like myself.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They're pretty different, though they're both bad. It just depends on which corporations (including unions) are signing their checks. The question is which party's spokesmodel will do the least damage. I'd rather a disorganized group of competing interests (Democrats) run the bureaucracy, than a fine-tuned gang of fascists with a Christian face (Republicans). If there were a possibility that Democrats might control all 3 elected sections of the Federal government, I might have to come up with a better strategy. But for now, though I'm not a member of any party, it's obvious that these fascist Republicans are destroying the country, and have got to go.
--
make install -not war
Tell me these two links aren't strongly correlated:
a ltech/apple.reut/index.htm e r/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/person
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokst
It's really not as bad as all that.
Important note: It was a 9-0 decision. This is (probably) a good thing -- it means that the overall decision was WAY toned down. When the decisions are 5-4, that means that the extremists of one side or the other won out through strength of numbers. When it's 9-0, it means the folks on both sides came to some kind of consensus.
From the decision: "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Anyway, the decision more or less only strikes against programs that are designed with violation of copyright laws as their primary purpose: case in point, Aimster, who implemented an encryption algorithm in their service solely for deniability reasons, and then got sued for it.
So how on earth do you prove that a device was distributed with the intention to infringe copyright? iPods, for example, come with a little sticker that says "please don't use me to steal music." In fact, because of the success of iTunes Music Store, it seems plausible that Apple, iPods, and other digital music players are almost definitely safe. Do people infringe with iPods? Of course. Does Apple know about it? Of course. But did they create the iPod to help people infringe? Nope, they created it to work with legal music.
BitTorrent, too, is safe. It was marketed primarily as a system for shuffling around large files in a more efficient manner. Even NASA uses BitTorrent to distribute their World Wind program. So, with BitTorrent, does infringement happen? Yes. Does Bram Cohen know about it? Of course. But did he write BitTorrent specifically for piracy? Nope, or at least, unprovable. So BT is safe too.
The Iraqi insurgents seem to have no problem giving us fits with basic assault rifles and homemade bombs. Obviously the same could work in the USA if the citizens were behind it.
This is my sig.
The Supreme Court can change its mind. I am profoundly grateful that they can. This is not an complete overruling, but they have done even that on occasion. Do you want to be trapped in a world where Brown can't overrule Plessy and Laurance can't overrule Bowers? I don't.
The probmem is that this creates a loose loose situation for everyone no matter what side they're on.
If you hate copyrights, like me, then it forces you bow your head and say "I'm using this to not because I think copyrights suck, but becasue of lame sounding reason A"
If you love copyrights, I won't help you anyhow, because it will just continue to drive your opponents deeper underground and make them harder to deal with, also it doesn't and can't stop p2p, only make it give lip service to "non infringing uses"
If you're neutral, or somewhere in between, all it does is add another potential liability to your list.
I'd like to know how this helps anybody on any side.
I happen to be on the side of P2P on this one. If only because I don't like people, legislators, and judges telling developers what their own [developers] intentions were. But it's thrilling to note that all you need is a catchy advertisement and a statement of work to get around other crimes.
It shouldn't be suprising however. The executive branch has been using this for years. An economic power grab for oil? No no no no! The ensuring of the saftey of the homeland!
See, it's all about the wording!
Well, the Supreme Court actually did give guidelines in this case. The guidelines being essentially
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties"
The Court sent it back to the lower courts to settle issues of fact. The Supreme Court usually never settles issues of fact that is why some cases are sent back to lower courts. Usually with instructions/guidelines on the rule for the lower courts to apply to the facts...once those have been settled.
So in Grokster's case, for example, is its behavior falling within the stated guidelines? That is the question of fact that requires discovery and fact finding. That is the job of the lower courts.
"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." said the judge while his three kids were at home downloading the latest music albums with bittorrent.
In short, this is a limited legal victory for the P2P community.
No, I think not. The pendulum has swung (at least a good bit) away from the legality of filesharing. The RIAA will use this as its next 1000lb gorilla that will give them even more leverage in future threats, both written and legal.
It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
Perhaps some kid will write the next Napster, "get smart", and publish on his website "This program does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I'm not legally liable for its misuse," thinking that not directly advertising the use of the program will prevent him from legal liability down the road (and depending on word-of-mouth advertising for the spread of the program). That's like me holding a gun in my hand, yelling out "I am not legally liable for this gun's misuse", pull the trigger, and kill somebody.
A P2P software program is also looked at as a tool that can legally be used for something illegal. They may say in their decision that a device promoted as a copyright infringer is liable for suit from copyright owners, but that means that the Burden Of Proof now falls into the software writers to prove that that was never the purpose of the software. Moreso, software writers may be responsible for enforcing their software from the possibility of it being abused. In the end, this may lead to the conclusion that a P2P program w/o any form of DRM will be considered illegal.
That is a serious loss for P2P.
And I quote:
... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
I therefore decree that pen manufacturers should be sued, as their products make excellent stabbing weapons. Following the same logic as above.
That said, I'm sure glad this sort of corporate presence wasn't there 10 years ago... or the Internet may have never existed in its present form.
It says that the creators of the software can't promote use thereof for illegal purposes. Now, I'm an English major, and the idea occurred to me - the SC could have just royally shot themselves in the foot with that word. A software designer could say, "This program is specifically designed for illegal file downloading - but I don't promote use of it for that purpose." I mean, hey - they're not promoting illegal activites. But, while they're at it, I thought of a couple more cases that could go before the Supreme Court along the same lines: 1)Maybe car companies should be held responsible for high speed collisions due to "promoting" unsafe travelling velocities via spedometer. 2)Maybe gun companies should be held responsible for people using their weapons to kill others due to their "promotion" of violence through the sale of bullets. 3)Maybe candy companies should be held responsible for consumers of the products who become diabetics - after all, "They're grrrreat!" Better yet, hold Hollywood and the entertainment industry responsible for copycat crimes! Every time you see a poster for Natural Born Killers, that's a promotion! *sigh* You know, my grandmother barely knows how to work a computer. The Supreme Court is full of people about the same age as my grandmother, and they're deciding the legality and constitution of technology about which I heavily question their real level of understanding.
On the face of it this looks perfect for BitTorrent and other "legitimate" tools. Except... the Supreme Court left it up to the lower courts to make the decision about whether something was promoted for infringing uses.
If the MPAA went after Bram Cohen, alleging that he promoted his software for infringing uses, do you think that Cohen would have the money to fight their lawyers in that case? Or would he be more likely to just settle to avoid the hassle?
If any small software company or individual hacker were thinking about making a new file-sharing app, or CD-ripping program, or mp3 encoder, or DVD backup tool... DO you think they will take the chance, knowing that even if they pass the test, they will have to pay thousands in legal fees to fight some of the biggest companies in the US?
This ruling is another victory for big business. It means Sony and Toshiba and Pioneer will be able to make CD burners still, and Apple will be able to make iPods, but it means a linux hacker working in their basement will be essentially prevented from making any software that could potentially be seen as infringing.
Of course, it won't stop the people who actually want to enable piracy, they can just release pseudo-anonymously, the way they always have (Cracked by Razor911!).
I think it'll have a terrible effect on hobbyist software developers and small companies.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
but I do recall that years ago there were several cases where the government and/or large special interest groups brought exactly this type of liability case against the major gun manufacturers. As I recall there was some serious concern that Smith&Wesson would be forced out of business if they lost (which they fortunately didn't).
It hasn't been done, per se, it's been tried. Sweeping suits to ruin gun manufacturers fail every time because they (the people bringing the suits) are unable to show intent to act against the law. A lot of cities or organizations were inspired by the multi-billion dollar tobacco settlements to try the same thing against any industry they thought was politically incorrect - and for some people, gun manufacturers are one of those. The problem is, there's no parallel there. The suits aren't about the gun being faulty, or the gun not doing what the maker says it's going to do. The suits were just trying to blame the maker for the bad acts of the user. The plaintiffs were hoping that they would be able to demonize gun makers by chosing juries that would someone mentally separate guns (an inanimate tool) from, say, knives, axes, or gasoline cans (also dangerous when used incorrectly).
Those suits were appropriately thrown out. But the prospect of having to spend millions of dollars defending against them was scaring the manufacturers. That's another thing most people don't realize - most gun manufacturers are much, much smaller companies than you'd think. Even some very popular companies (like Ruger, or Colt) would be in real financial trouble even after winning cases like that, because of the costs. The opponents were banking on that impact, knowing that even if they couldn't win on the merits, they could still injure the companies.
Ironically, of course, these people don't think about the fact that companies just like those also make and sell products to police, security, and military forces. Lots of them. Ruining domestic companies who also happen to sell them to target shooters, hunters, and people who buy for self defense also means killing off the companies that have contracts with your local police department. That means that those people would have to turn to overseas manufacturers (in Europe, mostly) to buy the very same type of product.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What I really find amusing is how everyone says "Guns don't kill people - people kill people", and yet Supreme Court now seems to say "People don't share copyrighted material - applications do".
So, could we expect Supreme Court to ban guns, even if it has its "legal" uses? I don't think so. Too much money involved, too many people sold their souls already.
People laugh at me when i say that we're all just slaves, and are living in slavery. They laugh, and then bleeth about new rules and laws being passed every day, and yet they think they are "free".
The only freedom that matters is the freedom to be LEFT ALONE.
Quite possibly, only few very rich people (and tribes which we haven't found yet) have that freedom...
The judgment is available here (linked to from here). That includes the summary, Souter's opinion, and the two concurring opinions. Other people have already talked about the important parts of Souter's opinion, but I found the concurrences just as interesting (though less important).
The first concurrence, Ginsburg's (page 30 of the above file), sounded pretty dangerous to me. It lists over a page of evidence for non-infringing uses (pages 34-35) and then immediately dismisses at all without considering it. It doesn't even talk of the dangers to new technologies. But the last paragraph is the scariest. "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM... the Court... should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding. Now, IANAL at all, but that sounds pretty bad.
The second concurrence (page 38), also by three judges, is a lot nicer to me. Pages 42 and 44 have long lists of non-infringing uses including books, Linux software, and things licensed under Creative Commons. It even says that Grokster is protected by the Sony standard. It goes on to talk about how the Sony standard has been a fairly good one. It talks of how both non-infringing uses of Grokster and use of legal programs (like iTunes) will grow. It's still a concurring opinion, but the tone is much more mindful of protecting technology and looking forward to the future, a view that was missing from the first concurrence.
I'm attending Black Hat this year and I read an interesting post from Ian Clarke, the creator of FreeNet, on their website. It seems like he was in the midst of creating a truly dark and searchable P2P client. I guess the supreme court will hold him liable now. Here's a link to the posting: http://www.blackhat.com/html/bh-blackpage/bh-black page-2005.html
I'm definitely going to attend his talk at Black Hat to see what else he has to say about this ruling.
... after all, they've a full-page ad in the Wired magazine touting Windows XP for ripping music, remixing it, and sharing ti with our friends. Windows XP makes it easy, if I recall correctly.
That would seem to qualify.
The SCOTUS decision is going to open a huge can of worms. Many ISPs have, for years, sold their broadband service as something that helps you download music at blazing speeds (long before legal services were available) and they permit you to download all sorts of images and content as well as upload content without any sorts of release forms, etc.
If the media companies wanted to, they've got the ammunition now to simply block public access (in the US) to the Internet until a new technology could be developed to limit data exchange to something they approve of.
I might argue that an FTP server or HTTP server is intended to share information, and can be used by any user to share music..... so what distinguishes a P2P app form all other services?
... there is legit use and not everyone should be punished, especially not the software makers...
It is bullshit like bittorrent
I'm surprised that there was any expectation that the Supremes would rule any other way. If you've been following the evidence, it's clear that the defendants were engaged in the business of enabling and inducing others to violate copyright.
You can make a handgun. You can market the handgun as being great for "home defence." But when you market the handgun as being ideal for "Jacking hoopties" you've crossed a line.
I don't really see what the fuss is about. Since when were we pro-marketdroid rather than pro-technology round these parts anyway? The technology is still there, and can still be obtained. All that's changed is that now businesses won't be able to promote it so aggressively, and users will have to use a little effort to get it. You know, about as much effort as it would take to name files correctly, which can't be a bad thing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This could form a legal mandate for rearchitecting the internet to a client-server model, where machines are designated as either clients or servers, the former of which can only connect to servers, and the latter of which are subject to licensing, regulation and auditing.
Alot of change in the world has occured for the better because people have said f**k you to what is unfair and broken the law.
The music industry, after keeping to antiquated and grossly outdated technology, and finding their music sales slumping, have pointed the finger to the Grokster and ran to mummy for help.
No you piss ant RIAA idiots, you haven't loss your music sales because people are using Grokster. You are lossing sales because people have a nice shiny new DVD player and they are spending money on those new and shiny DVDs. If Grokster is so dangerous why the f**k else would DVD sales be skyrocketing when these movies are being shared on the same network as your music.
Read the f**king research paper that says that new technology drives sales in content. (Couldn't be bothered pasting a link). Or read about the fate of companies like Atari, Commodore and many others who refused to improve their technologies not until the nth hour when it was too late
WAHHH, MUMMY THEY ARE NOT PLAYING FAIR! MOMMY!
Yet another ironic recursive statement.
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pd f
So now it's illegal to discuss illegal activity?
Yeah, and there ought to be a law making it illegal to break the law.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
As I read it (IANAL), the main opinion emphasizes that the evidence shows Grokster's aims to encourage infringement were clear. "The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement." It furthermore notes that the Sony ruling only limited "liability resting on imputed intent", not "displacing other theories of secondary liability", and held "that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
The second opinion chose instead to emphasize the error in the summary judgement given (in these justices' view) there was an issue of material fact (which would thus need to be decided by a jury) as to whether there was substantial non-infringing use, and noting that "if the absolute number of noninfringing files copied using the Grokster and StreamCast software is large, it does not follow that the products are therefore put to substantial noninfringing uses and are thus immune from liability. The number of noninfringing copies may be reflective of, and dwarfed by, the huge total volume of files shared." This comment suggests that the Ginsburg group would be inclined to consider any protocol used more widely for piracy than legitimate traffic to be unlawful in future court cases.
In contrast, the Breyer group, while agreeing that actively pushing the infringing uses of a dual use technology confers liablility, chose to counter emphasize that the fraction of non-infringing traffic on these services was similar to the corresponding fraction from the Sony ruling.
This thus gives a hint at how the current court would view a direct challenge to future direct assault on other p2p applications, such as BitTorrent. Moreover, it is worth noting that the two justices supporting Breyer are widely expected to be retiring shortly. The importance of Bush's hypothetical appointments is increasing.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Don't count on the Democrats to help fight corporatism; they're even closer to Hollywood, the RIAA and Big Copyright than the Republicans (who have enough of a suspicion of the coke-snorting hot-tubbing secularists of Hollywood not to give them everything they ask for automatically). Basically, the MPAA/RIAA are to the Democrats what the oil industry is to the Republicans.
When the Democrats next win power, expect DRM mandates and copyright extensions and expansions aplenty.
This is by design. The Supreme Court has some of the facts, but without a full trial, they should not decide the final result.
Nor should they really be setting the law through ivory-tower guidelines, unless there is sufficient case law to make it abundantly clear they are right. Our system works best when the trial courts with the facts decide cases, and the appellate courts later develop rules based on those decisions. It is an evolutionary process, based in the facts of each situation.
careful with that analogy. as far as i know, in many places just carrying lock picks around for no obvious reason carries a presumption of criminal intent. professional locksmiths are, as far as i know, registered with authorities in most locations.
care to register that BitTorrent client with the feds?
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I've seen quite a few gun magazines (mostly in the waiting rooms of auto shops, for some reason) that advertise ammunition or guns based on lethality or stopping power or penetration ability. To my mind, this isn't especially different than the claiming that "any movie or song" can be found on your P2P network.
You're missing the fact that there are many situations in which it is legal to kill another person. The self-defense and law enforcement markets have a legitimate interest in the stopping power of a firearm because the purpose of a gun is to kill. It's not to wound. It's not to scare. It's to kill a person who has become a threat to you or people who you must protect.
This is significantly different from advertising that you can get "any movie or song. " That implicitly includes ones that are illegal for you to obtain. In fact, it's extremely hard to claim without risking perjury that one didn't know that the vast majority of such data traded would be infringing.
Betamax was all about whether illegal misuse of a product sold for legal uses implied conspiracy to commit the crime by the manufacturer. Grokster was about whether or not potential legal uses of a product intended for illegal uses exempts one from conspiracy and collusion. The Supreme Court ruled the only way that they could have logically ruled which was to say that it wasn't a "get out of jail free" card. The question in this case is now one of Grokster's intended use.
Guns are a Betamax issue, not a Grokster issue.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Shooting a 9mm is fun and you don't have to shoot people with it either. Was it invented with the sole purpose of killing people? I don't know...maybe it was but that doesn't change the fact a gun needs someone to discharge it. I can go out and buy an assualt rifle and a .50 cal sniper rifle and enjoy shooting them. Nothing in their design makes them inoperable unless you are killing people with them. Just because someone buys a gun does not make them a killer anymore than the guns are killers. I could kill 25 people on the way home with my truck and no one would jump up and scream about outlawing trucks. Do I need armor piercing bullets? No, and that is reason I have never even tried to buy them. I don't have a problem with a world without armor piercing bullets but that starts the slippery slope of outlawing all guns and I am very much against that. I have guns in my house right now and I have been around guns the entire 31 years I have been alive. I have access to almost any type of gun you can name and I have never even pointed a gun at anyone much less shot someone.
In this case, they were in a asked to consider whether developers of a p2p client can be held accountable for illegal usage, and the answer was, yes, if they promote it for that purpose.
But did the Court answer the question of what happens when one group of people develops a program and promotes it for lawful uses and another group of people markets the same program for criminal uses?
"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.
Killing human beings in a very few circumstances, is permitted by law -- most notably self-defense. There have been many cases of criminals wearing body armor.
In the courts opinion, it is reasonable to think that a citizen may have a legitimate usage for armor-piercing bullets. If a ammo manufacturer advertized their bullets as being "cop-killers" then they would be more analogous to the people who distribute a p2p system with the advertizing of "find any song, movie, show etc."
You're arguing about gun-control in general, which is actually counter to what you're (I think) advocating. The same defense that keeps guns legal -- there is in certain circumstances a legal reason to have a gun -- is the same arguement that will protect p2p as a whole. There IS a set of circumstances in which p2p can be legally justified, and thus the whole technology cannot and will not be banned. Just as legally, there ARE restrictions on how guns can be used, there are going to be legal restrictions on how p2p can be used.
Do I agree with this p2p ruling? Not really, I don't personally support the current copyright law, but as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question. We don't value anything more than individual liberty, because life without liberty is an abhorrent concept. We ruled against people promoting breaking the law, and not against p2p. How else COULD we have ruled?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
It is actually very interesting to read Breyer's concurring opinion...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Let me see here. What ammunition specifically are you talking about? Virtually any round fire from a rifle has the power to penetrate a 'bullet-proof' vest. They are only designed to stop handgun bullets. And that's about all they do.
The same ammunition used in common hunting rifles would slice through a kevlar vest like butter. If, perhaps, you are referring to the 5.7x28mm pistol round that was recently making the frenzied media headlines, the steel-cored version can't be sold here.
Yet, I do.
If I sell a gun and all my ads say, "Kids, you can kill your parents tonight with our new Blasto 350", I am encouraging murder. "Kids download all your favorite songs for free with Grokster." I am encouraging copyright infringement, (according to current copyright interpretation.)
That is clearly illegal. (MPAA/RIAA and the Grokster-ilk are both equivalent whores in my book, since they are all trying to make money off of someone elses sweat.)
You could also see how programs that might preload searches of "Currently Showing Hollywood films", are just begging you to download copyrighted material.
On the other hand, a program like eMule, Freenet, etc. is clearly very generic and doesn't care what you download or share, and makes no money off of it.
I see nothing in this that effects Bittorrent, eMule, or the other non-profit file sharing apps at all.
I thought for sure when I saw they had ruled against Grokster that the reading of their ruling would break my heart, yet instead, I feel all the bad people are hurt by this, and the good are unharmed. (Citizens can continue to download and share what they wish to, MPAA/RIAA will continue in the precipitous downfall, and Grokster-leaches will go out of business.)
- I like pudding.
Sometimes they'll give hints to what they would have decided it a different question were asked, but it's really not their place to do anything but decide the case before them.
What'd I'd like to know is how this effects Stream Ripping - I use StationRipper daily - originally 'cause I was tired of P2P and the lawsuits related to that. Seemed like a valid "fair use" way to record music. Like my Tivo. Actually... does this mean Tivo is now going to get sued???
Hang on, read it again:
It seems to me that the ruling applies to the distributors. If the eMule developers are distributing their own software, then they can't do so with the intention to promote it that way. It seems that a third party promoting eMule can say whatever they want without harming the devs.
That's my interpretation, anyway...
Guns are a tool used for killing things. Grokster is a tool for swapping files. Both activities are extremely open for abuse, and innovations that make the tool more efficent make it more efficent for illegal use as well as legal. The distinction is not nearly as clear as you would like - the main difference being that there aren't a couple million wealthy lobbyists on the P2P side.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Bram Cohen did not act in good faith to prevent BT from being used for piracy
Oh really? I seem to recall that Mr. Cohen chose performance over anonymity in the fundamental design of the BitTorrent system because he did not want to give the system the ability to hide infringing use from copyright owners. At any time, a copyright owner's investigator or anybody else with access to a .torrent file and the Internet can look up and connect to the tracker(s) for the file and get a list of IPv4 addresses of people who are offering a substantial portion of a file for download. Then the copyright owner's counsel can plug those IPv4 addresses into a lawsuit vs. dozens of Does and have a judge subpoena the ISPs into identifying the owner of each Internet account.
Very few car commercials tout a safe driving experience (Volvo perhaps as the exception), and in fact, many commercials show the car exceeding the speed limit, driving fast around dangerous corners, and spinning out across desert landscapes, with only the occiassional "professional driver on closed course, do not attempt." appearing briefly.
IS THIS NOT promoting a vehicle for unsafe and illegal driving? Are the auto manufacturers liable now when someone drives off a cliff while trying to imitate these moves?
If I recall, parents sued MTV when their kids imitated Beavis and Butthead and set their mattress on fire, the kids died as a result.
Are adults supposed to be less prone to imitating stupidity? I think not. Behind the wheel, everyone is 7 years old -- witness most drivers on the freeway exceeding 80mph and flashing their highbeams to anyone in their way.
It seems to me that "the ultimate driving machine" and other auto companies that promote their cars specifically as FAST, are now going to be in for it, as why would they build a car with 300 horsepower if not to exceed the speed limit?
Is this not EXACTLY the same thing as the grokster ruling?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I don't call a so-called *Supreme-court-of-law*, a place where 5-4 decisions are allowed.
These criminal judges can only be shown-the-door by having as many people *show* them as much disrepect as possible.
This will of course make them look like the scum they are, and help to hurry up and retire, because they will get bored of trying to *run-the-world*.
As far as their decision actually *helping* further technological advances.. well I doubt The Court has this in mind..
And even if so, I don't believe the citizens of the earth want to see these advances made on the backs of kids that are being sued, put in jail, and having their lives ruined.
It will be much more satisfying to see the Supreme Court of the United States ambused and.. by the CIA or some other capable organization.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
And when a majority of users are using it illegally, the distrubuters of the app will get dinged because they didn't advocate the legal uses.
Then the distributors of the next big P2P app will strongly advocate the using of it to share LEGALLY distributable files, and because it gets widely used to share illegal files, they'll get dinged too because it is determined by the court that the advertisements are merely being facetious... that the fact they are putting so much emphasis on it only being used for legal purposes is nothing but innuendo that it's _actual_ intended purpose is for illegal purposes.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Code isn't considered protected speech, look at DeCSS.
I am trolling
Has anyone thought about how this decision could symbolize a landmark in the evolution of music? Is it possible that the music industry has become so inane with its profit obsession and the zero-talent "artists" they tout, that the karma in the universe will destroy the corporate music industry with this ruling--and set everything right? Indie music is on the rise--and it isn't just because of the Garden State soundtrack. Society's relation to music has been slowly shifting, so that it is now ready to demand quality music--the kind made by independent artists who won't care whether their tracks are shared on the internet. This is the music that will be available online, and will come to dominate the music scene if listeners view the ruling as the last acceptable assualt by the corporate music industry. There is an underlying tiredness for listeners who must accept Kelly Clarkson and the rest of the American Idols as "good music." This ruling could could usher in a new era in music. Where music is actually good.
that this case is unanimious, but it is being returned to the lower courts ANYWAY!
Normaly, this court is divided, which was part of my main point, that being divided is not a good way to *settle* things.
Regardless, making decisions (or split ones) that continueally erode *individual* rights, was my main point above.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
wow does this mean we're all gonna have to go back to USENET for our warez, romz, and gamez?
or even worse, suffering through fserv queues...
-- Believe your Justice!
well, since the boomer will remain the majority in numbers for say, oh, the next 30 years, I think we're gonna have a long wait.
- dj
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
:) And the blur from legal to illegal does not seem anymore clear than it was before this case.
Yes, exactly. Very informative.
Also, this does not make or test or change any new laws. So, what this ruling actually means is nothing. Nothing is different than it was before this ruling except that Grokster and MGM must go back to court again. Anybody can sue anybody
What MGM is suing here is for liability not legality. If a jury says that Grokster is liable to MGM for $10, then they have to pay the $10, and its over. This does not mean that Grokster has to do a single thing more, nor does it mean that they have to close their doors (unless $10 hurts them that bad). Now, I'm not sure how the law reads for an individual suing another again for an already awarded settlement from before. I would guess (and hope) that it is OK to keep suing.
The answer lies there.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
in the united states, it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal
I have personally fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition that was touted/reputed to have been "armor-piercing".
...funny thing is that not one of the rounds that I shot ever went through a "bullet-proof" vest. Every last one o' those bullets ended up lodged in a big ol' sand berm backstop.
If we applied your own "single-purpose" logic to my situation, then there must be something seriously wrong with my armor-piercing bullets as not one of them ever pierced armor.
So does this mean that A. Bhushan who wrote RFC 114 is culpable for crimes committed using anonymous FTP? Ludicrous!
ok, ok, you don't have to get offensive on me. I'm a liberal libertarian. And yes it did have a basis on the decision. The justice who was on CSPAN2 a couple months ago with Scalia (I believe it was Stevens) said as much.
Free MacMini
Only kidding
But serously, nothing is getting approved!! They are sending it back down where it came from (lower court), which will either a) *try* to decipher the garbage that came out today, and *make* the supremes happy (which means the supremes will *let-it-stand* next time it gets to them (in what,years?) or..
b) They will ignore the bastards, (which means that it will be good for us and bad for riaa until the supremes get it again).. but will still allow the scum bags to put our kids in jail and sue them meanwhile!!
I still think my last sentence, in my first post is the only answer! :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
seriously - what are the potential implications for those not subject to the US supreme court? will this ruling stifle development in the US such that us brits have fewer apps to choose from? will the EU follow suit? what if i develop grokster-like products and market them to the US - will they then call in the airstrikes? etc etc.
Donald Rumsfeld apparently disagrees with you.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
I was hoping someone else would point this out.
a further benefit to hemp being that it grows really quickly. which means that the source of paper can be renewed over short time periods, unlike trees. I wonder if the logging lobby is doing anything in particular about these sorts of laws these days.
the fibers make a nice fabric too, (as well as the well known rope...)
trees to paper just seems like a very inefficient way to do things. I suppose we should be thankful they weren't printing on vellum, PETA would go ballistic.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Make self-growers have a license (20 bucks or so, renewed yearly) to grow up to a certain amount of hemp/marijuana. Something along the lines of a limit saying you can posess up to five plants at one time, size restrictions may vary.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
...by the same liberal court that expanded the scope of eminent domain a few days ago. First they allow government to confiscate private property for the benefit of private developers, now they restrict software development to "protect" the rights of the media industry. No wonder every company that deals in anything creative is bugging the hell out of the United States and shipping jobs overseas.
I swear to God, the problems in this country are not the fault of the Executive or Legislative branches anymore. Somebody PLEASE get some judges on the benches who are interested in interpreting laws for the good of the people! If we don't do something to stop this general lack of common sense, we deserve the economic morass that we're heading for.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If pot was legal, people would not have to go through the trouble to grow it themselves. You can just as easy grow tobacco in your backyard, but people don't seem to be doing that.
Homegrowing is a side effect from it being expensive/illegal, not because it is so easy to grow.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Have the makers of the Tek9 or Uzi ever given guns free for use in a movie, in the same way car makers etc do? That could considered marketing their product for illegal use in many movies that feature gang culture.
According to the Supreme Court, the software in question here did, for reasons they clearly describe in the judgement. That's pretty much the point, isn't it?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Holding manufacturers harmless for things they promote for illegal purposes would result in a crime wave, fueled by 30-second spots on TV.
While a spate of infomercials on how to rob a bank with a loaf of C4 might be interesting, I think on balance the public good is best served by some sensible limits to free speech.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
...gun manufacturers aren't held similarly liable? (replace "copyright infringment" with "murder/manslaughter") Or are they these days, I forget--so out of touch.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Uh...excuse me but, without "high-speed" access, not too many people would download all the crap that they download now. Why else would you need 400K Bytes/second speed? To get news? Maybe check the sports scores? To read email? Maybe if you're downloading different programming crap or research crap, but how many of the people who have cable or dsl do that? How many of the people who have cable or dsl also have Kazaa or another program like that? I'll bet almost all of them.
More exactly, they are ruling that the illegal bit is the intent to assist or encourage copyright infringement, and that such promotion (or other affirmative steps) constitutes tangible evidence for the illegal intent.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
How is the fine line being drawn?
....
How can a software producer be liable for the end use of the software but the manufacturer of a weapon such as a handgun or rifle, is not? One can see very plausible good uses for most software. Guns on the other hand are designed to kill so
Prostitution laws seem similar to this ruling in that the hookers are liable to be arrested whereas the johns are not (depending on local laws).
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
IMHO, the Court couldn't let them off, which is why the Court was able to get a unanimous verdict, albeit on narrow grounds.
I mean, come on! District Court judges are far from infallible, and the Ninth collectively has no fear of being reversed (most-reversed circuit in the country, in fact.) However, anything that the USSC can agree on unanimously shouldn't get that far. I wonder if the Ninth affirmed in part so that the Supreme Court could have the choice of grounds for reversal.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
When I read the quote, the first thing that came to mind was how effortlessly one could change the meaning of this ruling with the changing of the two words...
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to [cause harm]... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Would that take us closer to making firearms and ammunition manufacturers liable for their products? Or knives, etc..?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
And worst of all (as the amici pointed out) with no clear way to know in advance. I believe that the Court made that point at oral argument: how is a developer (think Bram Cohen) to know when deciding to introduce a technology whether he'll later find himself with an adjudicated liability of several million times statutory damages (a sum that would bankrupt Bill Gates.)
The only prudent business decision would be to never introduce any technology that could remotely be stretched to infringe. In other words, never introduce any technology.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"All file sharing programs are subject to this decision, as are all technologies that can be used to infringe copyrights. Whether any of them would be found to be liable under the 'inducement' standard set out by the Supreme Court is another matter entirely. In fact, we don't even know whether Grokster will be held legally liable under that standard. That is for the lower court to decide in the next phase of this case."
And . . .
"Well, anyone can be sued, but you wouldn't win a case against a software manufacturer just because it can be used for infringement. What the Supreme Court said is that a technology manufacturer who 'distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement' can be held legally responsible for the copyright infringment of others. So there has to be some affirmative activity to promote infringement."
Now all we have to do is get Congress to reign in the REAL problem, the ridiculous copyright laws that constitute primary infringement. Crank it down to 10 or 20 years, not life plus 70! And make it so that everything written on a napkin is not automatically copyrighted. Make someone at least go to a copyright office website to get their copyright protection initially, and for a reneweal after a year.
Other companies have avoided this fate so far by not promoting themselves on that basis.
This decision doesn't change that, in fact I'm not sure they've really said anything that wasn't blindingly obvious in the first place. Which may mean that Grokster is going to be let off the hook in the lower court; but we shall see if Grokster has made any faux-pas.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"As I read today's court ruling, the Supremes are saying that the company is liable if they're out to make a buck from infringing content creators' copyright, but there's nothing to suggest that individuals who use such services for legitimate purposes can be held liable in any way.
I have a feeling most people's ISPs don't let large attachments through their SMTP servers.
"Of course, in the absence of further evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too closely to the Sony safe harbor."
who think it should be legalized, I have two words for you: gateway drug. Yes, maybe not for you, but for a lot of others. And when those others switch to the hard stuff (narcotics, etc.)...
Perhaps the "others" wouldn't switch to the "hard stuff" if they didn't have to buy their pot from narcotics dealers.
start shooting up neighborhoods and filling up the emergency rooms and mortuaries faster, you can tell everybody you didn't know it would be such a problem.
Our hospital ER gets filled up nearly every weekend with overdoses both legal (etoh, benzo, opiate, aceteminophen, and ASA), and illegal (cocaine, meth, and opiates), yet I've never seen anyone admitted let alone die from a marijuana overdose.
Just because alcohol and tobacco are already legal doesn't mean all drugs should be.
Nor does it mean that it shouldn't be.
As for the pain-killing aspects, you seriously think there's no alternative medications for that?
Actually, a legal form of THC does exist and is used for nausea and to increase appetites in cancer and AIDS patients.
Quote from the site:
"A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.
Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market."
There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."
You could infer from the above that the anti-smoking crowd has done more to stop the legalization of pot than anybody else.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
My understanding was that 18 USC 44 section 922 (part a; 7 and 8) prohibited manufacture or sale of armor piercing ammo except for the use of and sale to either state or federal government.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Are you kidding? Hell no. The copyright laws are meant to protect an idea. My idea. If I invent something when I'm 30, you can be damn sure I still want it protected when I'm 50! And beyond! After death, you might have a point, but only under the circumstance of a lengthy lifetime. If I invent something today, and kick the bucket tomorrow, too bad. You don't get to jump on my idea. You also don't get to commit a corporate assassination to get my patents. It's my idea. Get off.
Are you nuts? Do you have any idea how freaking overloaded and crazy things would get if there was no blanket copyright law? Think about it for a second. Think about all the things that are copyrighted and protected, and now imagine all those things having to be physically represented to the patent office. (BTW, we actually used to do this during the dawning days of the US patent office, but for the exact reason above, it failed quickly and we got the system similar to what we have now.)
So if you make a P2P app, yer okay. If you make a P2P app and promote the piracy of software/music/etc, yer not.
...
Sounds good to me. What's the problem?
Companies cannot be entirely responsible for what people do with their products. I mean, Apple sells the iPod for playing music. They aren't responsible if I tie a rope to my iPod and use it as a mace to kill someone. However, they would be responsible if they had advertisements saying I should tie a rope to my iPod and kill people.
If I use a P2P app, there's usually no limit on the kinds of things you can share, and usually no control over the community that uses the P2P app. The company making the P2P app cannot be held responsible for the files people share, especially since a legitament mp3 looks no different from a pirated mp3 on the P2P network.
But TCP/IP and network cards have equally, if not more, so legitimate uses. P2P is 99% piracy. Not that I think they can stop it. The large media corporations are just being out evolved by new technology. Time to evolve or die. After all, they've only been around for ~100 years.
Rob.
The quote on the front page comes from the CNN/Money Krysten Crawford article, and is partially fabricated.
... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
The words, "using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses" are not part of the ruling, and as many others have pointed out here, it's actually fairly misleading. I won't speculate on Ms. Crawford's motivations for the misquote, other than that she's probably just a confused journalist who thinks it's OK to bend ethical rules to get a story out.
I was very impressed by Justice Breyer's concuring opinion:
---Cut---
"Such legitimate noninfringing uses are coming to include the swapping of: research information (the initial purpose of many peer-to-peer networks); public domain films (e.g., those owned by the Prelinger Archive); historical recordings and digital educational materials (e.g., those stored on the Internet Archive); digital photos (OurPictures, for example, is starting a P2P photo-swapping service); "shareware" and "freeware" (e.g., Linux and certain Windows software); secure licensed music and movie files (Intent MediaWorks, for example, protects licensed content sent across P2P networks); news broadcasts past and present (the BBC Creative Archive lets users "rip, mix and share the BBC"); user-created audio and video files (including "podcasts" that may be distributed through P2P software); and all manner of free "open content" works collected by Creative Commons (one can search for Creative Commons material on StreamCast). See Brief for Distributed Computing Industry Association as Amicus Curiae 1526; Merges, A New Dynamism in the Public Domain, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 183 (2004). I can find nothing in the record that suggests that this course of events will not continue to flow naturally as a consequence of the character of the software taken together with the foreseeable development of the Internet and of information technology. Cf. ante, at 12 (opinion of the Court) (discussing the significant benefits of peer-to-peer technology)."
--End----
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/04-480P.ZC1.pdf
I think that it shows that at least some of the Justices do have views that Technology proficient would agree with.
Is the ruling "Right"? I don't know, but I feel better knowing that it was a concenting opinion and that at least one of the Justices seems to know something technology.
CAPS LOCK: ITS LIKE THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME
Umm dude, speaking as one of the people who "brutally" put down the revolution (D Co, 1/149 Armor, CA ARNG), it was nothing of the sort. It was a bunch of people out to destroy and steal what they could while the police were overwhelmed. They had no political agenda beyond "I want that TV" or "I want to burn down that shop". Look at some of the TV interviews with looters during the riots- they're quite honest about what they were doing.
As far as being brutally put down, my unit despite being in one of the absolute worst areas of LA (Rampart) did not fire a shot, and indeed never used physical force beyond rounding up some illegal immigrants. (INS had a field day) The rioters in our area were in far more danger from the Korean storeowners who were armed to the teeth and not afraid to shoot back. There were a few bad instances (one about two blocks from my HQ) but the Guard had all the free food we could eat- people were stopping us on the streets to thank us for being there.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Holy Crap! Timothy McVeigh is posting to slashdot from beyond the grave!
Well, given the US track record on on invading other countries to defend the interests of large pollitically well connected US organisations; I think I had better go start digging that bunker in the back-yard now...
Why not? It's not hard to find their website. As of 5PM today, two handguns, a flag, a racecar, and no bodies.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
"Far be it from me to tell these people how to do their jobs"
They work for you!
Citizen, Taxpayer: You have a right to tell them how to do their jobs.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
There's a new public radio show. It's called Open Source and the idea is to use the power of the internet to get more voices on the radio, blur the line between the radio and the web. Tonight's show is about the Grokster decision, 7-8pm Easter time. Jack freakin Valenti is going to be on, as well as the CEO of Morpheus. Please call in to the show or post on the blog: http://radioopensource.org/ (877) 673-6767
How is it that the Supreme Court is surprised that pigopolist works passed through the networks? Large publishers spend billions promoting their garbage and have government protection in the form of public airwave ownership. Works from smaller publishers are impossible to find on public airwaves or cable stations. Is it any surprise that few people know about it or demand it, even if they could download it at now cost or leagal trouble? HTTP, FTP and even SMTP would surely fail similar tests.
More sinister, the notion taken for granted is that software makers should somehow "filter" "copyrighted" material. This is absurd on two counts:
These two things make the foregone notion impossible and casts great doubt on the wisdom of the court.
What follows from this decision will not be good. If it's reasoning is followed it effectively cements the position of the world's three large music publishers and all other pigopolists by forcing DRM. Anything else said after that is just ignorant psycho-babble and reading it will merely serve to familiarize yourself with pigopolist propaganda. The closest thing to clear copy intentions is the Creative Commons licensing scheme, which seeks to overcome these basic problems of current copy right law. Creative Commons content is dead in the water without a means of distribution and if used by DRM software would simply be a finely graded Broadcast Flag. New companies are going to be locked out of the internet content distribution business by insane burdens of proof and I'm not proud to be an American right now.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Sad thing is...whenever I push conservatives against the wall on the issue (aka cut through all the other FUD) this is their core reasoning. Pot is bad because it might make you more apathetic which will decrease productivity. Its like conservatives only care about the big picture, and they put power above freedom.
Open Source Sushi
Jefferson was a member of the Democratic-Republican party, which is the direct ancestor of the modern-day Democratic Party.
n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republica
So doesn't this mean that the Supreme Court has simply ordered the lower court to try the case in light of their new ruling?
In other words, this ruling doesn't say "Grokster is responsible for the infringing acts of their customers". It says "If a company promotes a product for infringing use, the Betamax decision doesn't give them a free pass". It's up to the lower court to determine if Grokster actually crossed the line.
... ... ... ...
I don't agree that is what the ruling says:
The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement.
One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement,
And both companies communicated a clear message by responding affirmatively to requests for
help in locating and playing copyrighted materials.
The unlawful objective [Of Grokster and Streamcast] is unmistakable.
There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error.
Then they hand it back down saying: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Ie, The betamax case isn't relevant, these people encuraged others to break the law, they are guility as hell, now will you place give them a sentence while we take a nap.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I create my own music by the way, music is not and never will be a product to me. The fact that music is a product to you and not an art shows me you arent an artist.
What a ridiculous load of dung.
If you create your own music, then no worries. You don't need the product others are creating, and if you'd stop listening to it the melodies wouldn't be repeated in your own music.
I presume the same way they do with every other agricultural product.
Everybody seems to be comparing MJ with tobacco, so why not continue with that. You're aware that you can grow tobacco in your back yard or in planters, right? A guy could grow tobacco in his backyard garden, dry the leaves on his back patio or the oven, and roll his own cigars/cigarettes/etc. Somehow tobacco companies still manage to make a huge amount of cash, and governments worldwide still manage to collect a nice amount of coin on the stuff.
There's a lot of agricultural products out there (legal ones) that people CAN grow themselves but don't because they don't want to put in the time and effort. It doesn't take much effort, time or space to grow tomatoes either, but most of us still choose to buy our salad ingredients from the corner store rather than devote a planter or two.
People have been selling movies for years, people have been recording from radio for years. Now I guess because its on the internet its somehow different? Whats the difference? This isnt new.
A vanishingly small minority of people were abusing fair use privileges with VCRs and audio cassettes. They typically recorded broadcast material for personal use. With audio tapes many people also made mix tapes or transcribed albums onto cassette to play in their cars, walk-man devices, etc. Your claim that "people have been selling movies for years" is specious. That practice was always expressly forbidden and the vast majority of user never did so. Most people who recorded material from radio broadcasts also did so in a fashion that was similar to time-shifting. They did so for personal use, not for sale to others.
It is not that the internet is different. The issue is the use to which it is being put. Using a recording/playback mechanism for personal use is still fair game. It is fine to back things up, to record and play back for purposes of time-shifting, and to transfer media you own to another format for more flexible personal use.
There are a number of file sharing networks and P2P products which were expressly designed, and marketed to end-users for the purpose of ripping and sharing copyrighted material with others. This is not "fair use" by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is not the internet per se, or even P2P networks per se. The problem is programs and networks whose design, marketing, and substantial use have no legal justification under the fair use provisions of copyright law.
Your words strike me as disingenuous (and frankly dishonest). Attempting to justify unethical behavior by citing a prior illegal practice (recording and selling movies) is rather childish. Comparing the practice of recording music from the radio for personal use to uploading and downloading music ripped from CDs for the sole purpose of indiscriminate sharing with others is tenuous.
Grokster and certain other programs+networks are clearly promoting copyright infringement. They are not innocent bystanders to their users' infringing activity. The vast majority of users are stealing music rather than using the tools in ways which are covered by fair use provisions. Do you honestly think that the tool was not expressly designed to support this activity? Do you believe that the advertising did not explicitly encourage such use? Are you naive enough to believe that the majority of users do not use the program primarily to trade copyrighted material in ways which are expressly forbidden?
Grokster was promoting copyright infringement. They did everyone a disservice by attempting to hide behind the Sony/Betamax decision. The Supreme court called a spade a spade and sent it back to the lower court. The decision seems fair and reasonable.
I don't agree that is what the ruling says...
Hmm. That part didn't get quoted in the article referenced two levels above (or three, I can't find it in all the 2nd amendment debate that's taken over this sub-thread). Indeed, that DOES make a difference.
The one thing that I find worrisome is this: the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works and locating and playing copyrighted materials...
It's not illegal to locate, download, and play copyrighted materials. Making them available for download against the wishes of the copyright owner is the actual illegal activity, and the way P2P works you normally make them available when you download them, but... here: I'm about to help you locate, download, and play copyrighted materials. Follow these URLs:
http://magnatune.com/
http://www.lujorecords.com/
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cuo/audio.html
http://www.pianosociety.com/
http://www.serg.vangennip.com/www/piano.html
http://zebox.com/woodmoran/music/
I realise this isn't the kind of "copyrighted materials" he's talking about, but I'd REALLY like to see words like "non-royalty-free" or "restricted distribution" in there somewhere.
Court rulings are based on the specific facts, which are different for every case. If you are looking for general guidelines, don't ask the courts; you should be looking to the lawmakers to write clearer laws.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredpost s.html#a003259
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/hila ry-rosen/the-supreme-wisdom-of-not_3221.html
Aren't you forgetting 4) The medical marijuana ruling, which by ruling that the federal government has the right to arrest people grown in their own home for the own use under the "commerce clause" of the constution, effectively established a precedent that state's rights no longer exist? Everything, including sex and politics, is sold somewhere and crosses state lines somewhere, therefore now everything can be controlled by the federal government, and the individual state statutes be damned!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
CNN and other news media mention Souter's opition. Isn't David Souter the most computer-illiterate judge on teh Supreme Court? No wonder the Supreme court does not care about stiffling technological innovation.
I think the perspective that the Justices viewed the case play a large role here. Grokster's (software) express purpose for being was (and according to the Justices still is) to facilitate an illegal act. I think the Justices viewed Grokster (the company) in much the same way that you would be viewed as an accomplice to the crimes of murder, robbery, or other illegitimate practice for providing a "getaway" car; with the full knowledge that it was to be used in connection with the crime.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
In the 1980s the courts ruled that VCRs (that's video cassette recorders, for you young 'uns) were legal because they had "significant non-infringing uses."
Why not just apply that precedent, instead of rehashing the whole thing every time the technology changes a little?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Court rulings are based on the specific facts, which are different for every case. If you are looking for general guidelines, don't ask the courts; you should be looking to the lawmakers to write clearer laws.
IANAL
Well,. that is only part of the issue.
The courts can and do issue general guidelines about how these laws should be applied in general. This is the function of judicial opinions, and they are binding for subsequent cases. I.e. the same tests apply.
You have a couple of options. You could go down to your local law library and start reading everything you can find. Or better yet, you can ask a lawyer for an informed opinion. Or you can go to law school.
In the end though, anyone can be mistaken about what a court will say that it meant. And courts occasionally do change their guidelines if a substantial case is made that this is necessary.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Anti gun freak variation:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to shoot people, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster shooting people, is liable for the resulting acts of shooting people by third parties.
Oops! Unconstitutional
Anti "Defense Industry" variation:
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to kill civilians by aerial bombardment, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster killing civilians by aerial bombardment, is liable for the resulting acts of killing civilians by aerial bombardment by third parties.
Shit. Too specific. I guess they're off the hook
Anti corrupt foreign allies variation:
We hold that one who distributes foreign aid with the object of promoting its use to enrich politicians, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to enrich politicians, is liable for the resulting acts of embezzlement by third parties.
Darn, too different. No liability there.
Anti spammer variation:
We hold that one who distributes a spam with the object of promoting its use to buy worthless crap, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster the purchase of worthless crap, is liable for the resulting acts of buying worthless crap by third parties.
Goddamn it! That one doesn't even make sense!
Anti franchise fast food variant
We hold that one who distributes a fattening food with little nutritional value with the object of promoting its use to have people eat it and get fat, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster eating the fattening food, is liable for the resulting acts of enfattenment by third parties
Sounds good, but do we need laws for this?
Anti drug and alcohol variant
We hold that one who distributes a mind-altering substance with the object of promoting its use to have people alter their consciousness, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster consciousness-altering usage, is liable for the resulting acts of consciousness-altering by third parties
I can see it now, alcoholic beverage manufacturers liable for acts committed while drunk. The DEA will love it, though. Throw in tobacco and coffee, and civilization will probably stop in its tracks, such as it is.
No wonder I'm not on the Supreme Court. Those guys are just too good at this shit.
Actually its quite legal you AC asshat.
If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
Does that mean I can sue Microsoft because I can use IE as an FTP client and get copyrighted media? I mean, if the volumne of noninfringing copies doesn't really matter, then technically, any file transfer application or protocol would fall under the same ruling. Right?
If you hate copyrights, like me, then it forces you bow your head and say "I'm using this to not because I think copyrights suck, but becasue of lame sounding reason A"
Not using, not even creating, but distributing.
It's unclear to me though whether this would apply to someone simply distributing software which was created and marketed by someone else (for whatever reason). Is it the software itself which is considered illegal to distribution, or is it only distribution by someone certain entities? What if someone anonymously created the software and the software itself was distributed via P2P?
You can grow all kinds of vegetables in a home garden. But most people will still buy them at the grocery store, often shipped from some other part of the world.
Really, it is the same with pot even now. It is probably safer to grow your own, yet most people still buy from a dealer. And the pot you buy from a dealer is probably grown illegally too. It is just less hassle to buy it than to grow it, and that happens even though there are HUGE mark-ups from all the middle-men taking risks to get the drug to the end-user.
With legalization, a corporation could deliver you the product without all the middle men taking a cut. It could offer you a lower price than now, and still have very large margins. Granted, there would probably be a huge vice tax tacked on, but the price would probably still be lower.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Can you imagine something like Gutenberg today? They would burn the presses because Monks and monastary incomes dropped due to wholesale printing.
How about the introduction of foreign law decisions in U.S cases.
Then of course, you can only own property at the whim of the government.
And of course one of the pillars of law ... the ten commandments cannot be displayed in courts (but I guess it's okay to display in the scotus building).
Oh, there were so many crappy ill thought out decisions from this court.
have all died.
The receipts are in and movie houses takes have sucked. All the blockbusters have been ball busters. Movies are a mugs game and the production budgets are so astronomical that they have to resort to draconian measures, like suing their audiences, to see a dime.
They won exclusive rights to what exactly?
I'm looking forward to the day when I can legally download a movie that was put together at an indie house (from an iMovie-iTunes look/work alike) and we can get rid of all these movie houses.
Actually, these movie houses are terrorist magnets. Why blow your self up in the street and take out a few people when you can take out a whole theatre full?
They'll probably be made illegal as soon as somebody figures that out.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Trying 127.0.0.1...^MConnected to localhost.^MEscape character is '^]'.^MWelcome to MLdonkey^MWelcome on mldonkey command-line^MUse ? for help^MMLdonkey command-line: > s futility^MResult of search 1^MReinitialising download selectors^M88 results (-152 waiting) [ Num ] Names [ 1] The War on Drugs - Ripped By Falken 785Mo.avi [ 2] MGM and the end of rationality. Newworld. avi [ 3] All little Timmy's seratonin are belong to us.wmv [ 4] Pssst. You. That little closet projects of yours of the last few years is better than what we could cook up in decades, so now it is illegal.pdf [ 5] An office clerks guide to open heart surgery.lit [ 6] Misunderstanding distributed chaotic systems.pdf > d 4 2 download started download started > q Connection closed by foreign host.
KeS
> question for the supreme court:
> do you really believe the the copyright of the bay
> city rollers first album is more deserving of legal
> protection than a human life?
Copyright outlast life by 70 years! So natuarlly it needs more protection!
But think of this: a weapon can be used to shorten the term of copyright, by shortening the life of the author (who is usually not the copyright owner in the case of recorded popular music, since the right are signed away by young artists seeking a recording contract). But the current ruling cannot help here. Killing the auther is not infringement of copyright. Contrary to infringement, it promotes the legal use of the work (after the shortened copyright term expires)
What P2P and other technologies that enable access to content (search engines, websites...) would need now is a way to show that they are not advocating illegal use of information.
What I think is needed is an open protocol for stating use permisions of files served. Such a protoco; would allow the poster of a file to include information about the allowed use of the files, such as GPL or other open source licence or Creative Commons license allowing redistribution/derivative works etc. Such a protocol should also allow for posting of contact info of copyright holders for those copyright holders that do not wish to set permisions in advance, so whoever finds the file can easily check if the file is reusable by asking the author.
What such a protocol would allow is for P2P clients and for search engines to allow users to limit their searches to files with permisions to use (or to sort search results according to freedom to use). Distributors of P2P clients could use these abilities for legal defense, and they can also set the defaults to prefer free content.
The main benefit is teaching people to look for free content (i.e. with legal permisions given in advance in a GPL/CC style license). If people just change their habits a bit due to default instalations prefering content that comes with predetermined permisions, it would put presure on everyone who wants their contents to be found to supply at least some permisions.
Of course it may be abused: anyone can rip a CD and post the contents with a CC redistribution allowed license. But the legal consequences then would mean jailtime rather than settling with the RIAA out of court on a few thousand bucks.
This sounds like DRM. It sounds like this because it really is DRM. But if the free culture community wants to promote free use licences and avoid restrictive DRM, it has to win the race and produce DRM of the kind that would protect the rights of the public, instead of the interest of commercial interests (should DRM be renamed CIRM for "Digital Commercial Interests Managent"?). An open standard to communicate permisions would allow anyone to write software that gives the user the choice to choose what's right and what's wrong. Closed DRM deprives the user of any right, and transfers the power completely to the supplier/distributor.
It was moderated a troll because if the OP was a "techie" he would know that sharing copyrighted material is not illegal.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/key_quote s.php
... their enterprise turns on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing." Almost every commercial enterprise derives value from its popularity. This point implies liability based on use of an entire family of legitimate business models (including Google's).
:-(
I've been trying to keep my cynicism under control while reading the opinion. But frankly the proposed tests for "inducement" are ludicrous, circumstantial, and horrifying to network software developers. Check out these gems:
1. "Grokster's name is apparently derived from Napster". So does a defendent need a four letter match to be guilty, or is three enough? Would they be innocent if they named it "Furry Bunny P2P"? "Retspan P2P"?
2. "It advertised its OpenNap program to Napster users". Meaning it's partial inducement to bootstrap new p2p protocols via earlier networks
with a high amount of alleged infringing activity. Will Bram need to USPS bulk mail CDs for his next protocol?
3. "Neither company attempted to develop filtering tools". OK this is where it gets extremely bad. Unless p2p developers build ineffective countermeasures ON THEIR DIME to appease entertainment companies, they are criminally liable. Will p2p apps have to blacklist game theory papers because they contain a popular rapper's name in their text? No, but the alternative is now probable liability during lawsuit.
4. "the more the software is used, the more ads are sent out
All previous theories of contributory infringement were direct. For instance, if Grokster employees stood outside of movie theaters and record stores saying "Why Buy? Steal Popular Music And Movies From Copyright Owners using Grokster!", they would clearly be guilty.
What SCOTUS has done today is create a new theory of liability, based on arbitrary whim: name similarity, failure to adequately satisfy a corporate plaintiff's demands, etc.
There should be little doubt that this case will have a chilling effect on US p2p innovation. I am deeply saddened by this unreasoned and imprecise decision.
BitTorrent makes no attempt to verify that the tracks are legitimate and involves no rights-management technology.
Neither did Betamax, but neither Betamax nor BitTorrent was promoted by its creator as a tool for infringement.
Surely that just makes you an idiot for using "armor-piercing" ammunition when there was no need to
Both rifles and pistols recoil (kick) differently when firing harder rounds.
We also take aim at different points on any target, even if they're made of paper when using ammunition that depends more on penetration than expansion or fragmentation.
I do find it amusing when folks who want to impose further restrictions on people they don't know or things they don't know about need to resort to childish name-calling.
It's funny watching 'em jump to conclusions too.
They're telling us that intellectual property is more protected than real property. Maybe it's because the VAST majority of IP is owned by big corps? And they're trying to put real property into the hands of these corps also? When can we exert eminent domain on IP? To further the progress of human society? We should claim the right.
What?
I would encourage anybody and everybody to research the history of copyright law. I think you would be surprised at how much the laws have changed purpose from allowing new ideas to be rewarded but ultimately allowing the public to use and re-use them, to having 100 year copyrights that give nearly indefinite privileges to the copyright holders with little or no public benefit or use. Imagine what the world would be like today if Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Bach, Beethoven, and Vivaldi still had copyrights going..... Imagine a world where Shakespeare, Bronte, Byron, Longfellow, and Dickens could not be re-interpreted, reprinted, or read without copyright permission..... The public has a fundamental right to free access to these works. To re-interpret them, and to use them in new and interesting ways. And now this freedom is under attack by Hollywood and the music industry at an unprecedented scale. They have extended the length of copyrights so many times in the last 50 years that some copyrights, such as Disney's Mickey Mouse, that should have expired already are now covered well into the next millennium. By reforming and extending copyrights, the government is essentially ensuring that these works NEVER enter the public domain. As a society we have a public consciousness. Nobody has original ideas, or original thoughts. Everything we are, is a result of public interactions. When an artist writes a song, or a book, or a movie, they are taking from their interactions with society and the world, re-interpreting them, and creating something different. But you don't see them giving any money to the public for the ground work of their art. Under the original copyright laws the owner would be able to recoup expenses and turn a profit but the work would become public domain within a span of years instead of decades or centuries. When a work of art is returned to the public domain the cycle begins anew, with new people reworking our collective ideas to come up with something different, and then that work is returned to the public domain which inspires new art, and so on, and so forth, that is the way it is supposed to be. When you stack the deck in favor of Hollywood, like the supreme court has done on countless occasions, you interrupt that cycle and new work cannot be done without being sued for copyright infringement. The supreme court ruled today that P2P file sharing programs can be held liable for piracy on their networks. This ruling has dire consequences for the free exchange of ideas. It will NOT stop piracy. But it will give Hollywood and the MPAA the tools to dismantle public networks in the name of copyright infringement. It paves the way for even more legislation to take away public rights and further the profits of mega corporations. Our founding fathers believed in the idea of revolution. They believed that the only way to maintain freedom, was to give the people the power to revolt against their government. Our freedoms and liberties are being systematically reduced and offset to pave the way for private interests to become richer and richer. Our fundamental rights are being sold off, wholesale, by a corrupt judicial and legislative system. I for one will NOT allow my freedoms to be sold to the highest bidder. I will revolt. I will not give an inch to these money grubbing swine. I will revolt with my dollars. With my paycheck. I will not spend my hard earned money on movies and music that feed the system. I will willingly champion and patronize the artists themselves whenever possible but I will under mine, disrupt, and batter the corporate interests at every opportunity presented. If the government passes a law that the people do not believe in, and that cannot be enforced, then that law is null an void in the hearts of the people and we WILL not abide them.
Don't worry, it was an easy mistake to make.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The market for hemp was marginalized long before the introduction of nylon. Hemp Fiber Losing Ground, Despite Its Valuable Qualities (1931 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture)
Hemp for marine cordage has been superseded by abaca (Manila hemp) because the abaca ropes, cables, and hawsers are lighter and will float in water and this hard fiber is resistant to injury from salt water without being tarred...The term "hemp rope" has lost its significance for in America ropes are no longer made of hemp.
the domestic production amounting to 800 to 1,00 tons per annum is only about one-half that of the years between 1908 and 1913.
I just started using BT for Linux distros, and am currently paying my dues by seeding. I don't give a crap for the entertainment on the web -- songs, movies, whatever. The RIAA can keep them. I will be extremely pissed off if anyone causes BT to be thought of as a medium for piracy. If you are using it for that, keepa u hands offa! We need one geeky highway for geeky stuff. Leave it alone and go play on crapster, pr0nster, funster.
Copyright does not protect ideas. A court will reject a copyright if it tries to claim an idea. Copyright protects only expression. During the vastly significant history of copyright, a holder had to do something affirmative to receive his copyright. Even today you must register your copyright before you sue someone for infrigement. If it's not worth the time to take an overt action, then it shouldn't be copyrighted.
There is no ban.
Shirin Ebadi (2003) was the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Shirin Ebadi
Her essay on child and family law can be found in the Encyclopedia Iranica, available in English from Amazon.
Neat. That's the first time I've seen that. Good find.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.
Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.
While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.
Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.
Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.
While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.
Perhaps the "others" wouldn't switch to the "hard stuff" if they didn't have to buy their pot from narcotics dealers. To those not familiar with addiction, I assure you that's not how it works. Our hospital ER gets filled up nearly every weekend with overdoses both legal (etoh, benzo, opiate, aceteminophen, and ASA), and illegal (cocaine, meth, and opiates), yet I've never seen anyone admitted let alone die from a marijuana overdose Yep and I guarantee you that all of those people who overdosed on the hard stuff would have started with marijuana and worked their way down to something harder. It's why we call it addiction. One you take that first step, it's a slippery slope. Not everybody slides, but anybody who operates are motor vehicle or works in a potentially hazardous environment while being impaired by THC can easily be just as dangerous as somebody who drives drunk. You might think a little weed is no big deal, but I sure don't want somebody driving stoned behind me at night. I speak as a recovering addict, not somebody who read this out of a book. I not only experienced it firsthand, I saw and heard what it did to others unlike the average Slashdot reader. The thing about being an addict is that you don't know it until it's too late.
Yep and I guarantee you that all of those people who overdosed on the hard stuff would have started with marijuana and worked their way down to something harder. It's why we call it addiction. One you take that first step, it's a slippery slope.
It sounds like you would be happy if prohibition returned. All that did was make millions of criminals because of a few and encouraged them to associate with bootleggers.
I not only experienced it firsthand, I saw and heard what it did to others unlike the average Slashdot reader. The thing about being an addict is that you don't know it until it's too late.
Some people don't know they are allergic to strawberries until it is too late either, does that mean you outlaw strawberries? I hope you are still involved with the friends of Bill W. because you are still showing the controlling aspects of your addiction by expecting others to be responsible for your behaviour.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
On the contrary, I try and protect others before they have to learn the hard way, and to educate those who think it's "no big deal". If you seriously know anything about recovery then you know that we have to give it away in order to keep it. Trying to stop people before they get started is a big part of that.
Strawberries don't consume you from the inside out until you're a shell of a human being like crack or heroin can. Some are just interested in making excuses so you can smoke your weed and not be hassled by the police. You think it's not only not a problem for you, but not a problem for anybody else either. You're very much mistaken, and your careless attitude ensures that drug addiction is alive and well. You should ask yourself what it would take before you consider marijuana a problem, whether it's a problem of yours or something like somebody stealing your car stereo so they can go buy a bag.
On the contrary, I try and protect others before they have to learn the hard way, and to educate those who think it's "no big deal". If you seriously know anything about recovery then you know that we have to give it away in order to keep it. Trying to stop people before they get started is a big part of that.
What I know about recovery is part professional from working with addicts who have destroyed their bodies, and part personal from going to meetings with a S/O in recovery for a couple of years. The AlAnon folks tried to get me to join them but after a couple of their meetings I began to see they were just as sick if not sicker than the addicts.
Both groups were all about controlling others. The addicts would use their addiction to get what they wanted, and the AlAnon people would use guilt to get what they wanted. What I'm getting from you is you may have been an addict, and now you are in the other group.
Strawberries don't consume you from the inside out until you're a shell of a human being like crack or heroin can. Some are just interested in making excuses so you can smoke your weed and not be hassled by the police. You think it's not only not a problem for you, but not a problem for anybody else either. You're very much mistaken, and your careless attitude ensures that drug addiction is alive and well. You should ask yourself what it would take before you consider marijuana a problem, whether it's a problem of yours or something like somebody stealing your car stereo so they can go buy a bag.
I haven't smoked pot in close to thirty years. I am a social drinker, something my former S/O could never be. She was a drunk, now she is a recovering alcholic. When she first went into recovery she used the same tactics that you are using now, and that is laying on a guilt trip whenever I drank a beer in front of her.
You are responible for you, and though the 12th step is to give your recovery away what you are trying to do is preempt recovery. That you simply can not do because it denies others the ability to reach the 1st step.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I thought you were gone. Did you not, just a few weeks ago, say that you were never going to visit slashdot again?
Some times, that's why there's a group for them too.
The addicts would use their addiction to get what they wanted, and the AlAnon people would use guilt to get what they wanted. .
Sorry you had a bad experience. Some groups are like that. Some people at the meetings are not there for recovery. And your SO shouldn't be using guilt trips on you, but OTOH, it might not have been the most considerate thing to do to have a beer in front of her, especially if she was early in recovey.
But I'm not trying to control anybody. What I'm trying to do is warn people who don't know the danger. Of course if you don't smoke pot, then this topic isn't relevant with you.
What I'm getting from you is you may have been an addict...
May? Oh no, I was the real deal. Jails institutions (and the streets), but thankfully not death. What you're getting from me is an urgent desire to help somebody avoid what some of us have already been through, but didn't need to go through if there had been sufficient help available or maybe if enough people had made the warning more clear. It means nothing when you hear it from a school teacher or a cop. But when you hear it from somebody who's already been through it, it carries more weight. Or at least it should.
You are responible for you, and though the 12th step is to give your recovery away what you are trying to do is preempt recovery. That you simply can not do because it denies others the ability to reach the 1st step.
Oh indeed, if I can stop them from having to find out the hard way, I definitely will as the 1st step is the hardest of all. Most people don't make it past that one. Stopping people before they can get started is an effort that must be undertaken by anybody who understands addiction. When I was in rehab, I had a chance to work with the adolescents, and seeing kids as young as 13 already addicted to the hard stuff should be enough to set off alarms bells in anybody. Of course, the reality is kids younger than that get high. And why not, they see adults doing it. Not good.
Of course I understand these posts will probably make me the least popular reader on Slashdot, but oh well.
this is my thought exactly. I do download songs from p2ps and if I like them I buy them. If the album stinks I buy the single and if the song stinks I don't waste my money. The media markets have flooded us with hundreds if not thousands of options. Then to put a ruling out like this one just sets up the dominos for the ruling on the VCR and countless other rulings. the real way to put RIAA and MIAA in there place is to simply boycott everything so the power is back with the consumer. If it's to expensive don't buy it if it doesn't operate the way you like take it back. Big Media is winning because consumers let them. Take back the power.