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
"Come use my software for only legitimate reasons"
See? Now I'm good.
Betamax was fun while it lasted.
-- This void intentionally left null.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
"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.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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
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.
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.
Woohoo!
Pirate all you want with Grokster (while it still exists) and you're not liable! The Supreme Court said so themselves!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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 readOpinion 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.
No! It's the fault of the recording industry for creating the content to be shared in the first place! Sue the RIAA! ...
Wait a second.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
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
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
> 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.
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.
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?
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!"
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.
Or pdf actually
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Tell that to the scores of rabbits and squirrels I have legally taken with my .22 pistol. Or the 3 deer I have harvested with my .357 revolver. The longest was at 75 yards, in thick brush. All of the deer took less than 5 steps before expiring.
.45-70 or .308 from a revolver, go for it.
.50 BMG can kill effectivly, its all about bullet placement.
.223 Remington/5.56 NATO ( I know the actual bullet is not the same, but very very close ) was designed to drop prairie dogs (CXP1). It does not drop humans, but stops them, and does it with very very nasty maiming wounds.
Handguns are quite effective on CXP2 game within 100 yards. And most everything in North America is CXP2. CXP3 game should not be tried with (most) handguns, because most likely you will die. If you can handle the recoil of
Now a 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP handgun is not a hunting handgun. They are defensive guns. They do not drop CXP2 game in their tracks. Thay are meant to stop CXP2 game. Since humans fall in the CXP2 size class, you could say the primary use is to stop a human. That use could be good or bad, depending on the user. If you hunt CXP1 game, these are fine hunting weapons though.
ANY gun, from resivoir pump airguns to high power
If you want to complain about something, ask why a varmint grade bullet is used as the primary weapon of the US. the
"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
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.
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???
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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!"
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?
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.