Slashdot Mirror
Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF
Tractorjector writes "Mad Penguin has published part two of their MGM vs Grokster interview series (the first part was featured on Slashdot on 2005-06-27). This time the focus is on EFF Director Shari Steele. A very compelling (and somewhat concerning) interview."
Concerning or Disconcerting?
The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.
Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files. Those files can be anything, but one major use of bitorrent is to ease the spread of Linux distributions and other Open Source binaries.
Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.
I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers, but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Sure there were strings attached but when isn' there?
I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..
As a community we should shun copyright infgringement, but at the same time we should encourage the copyright holders to release their material for personal use..
Thats how I do my stuff.. My songs are copyrighted, or CC, but they have "no profit" without permission clause.. You are free to have them as long as you don't sell them.. Its really really simple.
Since I started posting my little songs up on the net I have contacted by BMI.. I am going to join, but only because they can help me if an artist took something i have written and recorded it/ changed it. etc and proffited without compensation or permision from me..
I need the EFF to ensure that I have the right to make my stuff available. They fight the good fight for us honest little people.
Long the the EFF!
From TFA:
We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate.
I have an idea then: why don't they make Linux insanely expensive, put it on a CD with a small manual that has a shiny Tux hologram on it, require the user to read a long boring EULA and enter a very long serial number, then have the Linux box display a Teletubbies-like background and make it contact an activation server at www.kernel.org? That way, pirates will just jump on it, distribute it like there's no tomorrow on P2P, and Linux will eventually displace Windows.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
We need broad public, and congressional pressure .. not judicial rulings. Remember judicial rulings can be overruled by constitutional amendments and other means such as judge replacements etc.
A long term, permanent solution requires informing and winning the public.
This makes no sense. Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!
In what way to "CNR" ot apt-get foster piracy for commercial gain?
I think the ruling is correct. If you deliberately set up a business that relies on copyright violation, then you deserve to get hauled through court.
I'd agree that the OSS community does need to shun piracy. OTOH I think people take things that Richard Stallman says, that software should be free, and try to equate that with "they want to steal stuff." That M$ would profit from piracy I think has long been established. Accusations like this were made years ago concerning usage in Central America. It was believed that M$ had let a dependence on Windows grow then cried fowl on piracy. It's a very effective tactic that has been used for ages by other sordid groups. Now it seems to be the modus operondi in East Asia.
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,3902467 7,39145066,00.htm e d_for_newsnight/ 0 588,00.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/04/brit_sack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,152
Am I the only person on the planet who finds that the EFF's director's name Shari Steele (Share & Steal) is ironic?
You have the right idea, but you seem to be buying in to some unfortunate memes that really should be scotched: "plausible deniability", "promoting illegal actions", "get away with aiding mass piracy"... Bittorrent is promoting legal actions, it's aiding the distribution of software, it doesn't need to "deny" anything. The problem is that there's a limited amount of bandwidth, the solution is a Usenet-style store-and-forward distribution system.
If Bittorrent had come first, and these systems had started out like Usenet as a way for people to share information (discussion boards, open source software, and so on) nobody at the EFF would dream of defending Grokster on the grounds that they're only making their money from "arms length" piracy, just like nobody sane would call an ISP a censor for refusing to carry alt.binaries.warez.
There's nothing new about peer-to-peer networks. The Internet is a peer-to-peer network. Usenet, UUCP, Fidonet, peer-to-peer networking has been the nerve fibers of the community that slashdot is part of since long before the Internet has been available to carry its traffic.
So it's a damn shame that Napster and its successors were created to take advantage of the limited anonymity of peer-to-peer networking rather than its bandwidth-accelerating capabilities... to uise the technology as a cut-out so they could make money from mass copyright violations rather than sharing legal material. Because they may have ended up poisoning the well for good, given the way even defenders of systems like Bittorrent are using this kind of language.
The Grokster decision was Good.
The ED of the EFF wants to stir up the masses and make us skeered the gummint gonna take away our P2P by letting the RIAA sue anyone who writes a P2P program or runs a peer-based download service.
People who advertise a tool expressly for its illegal purposes were already liable for those eventual uses. The Grokster case merely, and rightly, applied that old-as-the-hills principle to file-sharing services.
EFF is fearmongering for donations.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS?
It means that the people who are now stealing Windows, in five years, or ten, whenever they are better off and have their own assets at risk and their own wealth to protect and when the price of Windows is something they can afford, they will be familiar with Windows and be more likely to buy Windows than to switch to Linux.
This has been a tremendously valuable tool for Microsoft over the years, in the US and abroad. Combined with their proprietary file formats it's helped them keep the market for competitors to Office down... someone who can't afford Office is a potential market for a $50 word processor, except that it's easier to "borrow" Office from the office... so there's no low-cost competition to Office any more and even free software has a rough ride.
I suspect that's one reason they didn't put any effective copy protection in Windows prior to XP. Once they had the market penetration, they could go wild.
I oppose piracy not because it harms big companies, but because it helps them.
The same thing is true for music. There are some tremendous musicians out there doing amazing work, and promoting themselves through free music and listings on MP3blogs like 3hive. They're hurt by Grokster, because a huge chunk of their potential market is swallowed up by the P2P networks. I suspect that if the networks did go down, the labels would just find themselves facing a whole new threat from independants who are right now taking a bigger hit from P2P than the labels are.
EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions.
You mean like the broadcast flag?
No they don't have us in a stranglehold. Maybe they believe they do, or the public does, believing it is forced to buy certain items. But I think this may be just a result of history, and the role of copyrights. Basically, a game of numbers. How many people there are (world population), how many of those are creative spirits, and how well people are connected.
Imagine a primitive world with only 5000 souls, where only 1 in 1000 is exceptionally gifted/smart/genius. Then you have only 5 of those to provide that world with new creative works, scientific breakthroughs and so on. The discovery/birth of another genius would be a major event. And in a primitive world, anything new could take a long time before it reaches remote corners of the world. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, makes a great loss for society. A copyright system that puts a lock on the works of those few, can make a huge difference in that world's development. I think that copyright as a concept is mostly based on the idea that creative spirits are a rare commodity.
Fast forward to here and now. With a world population of 6 billion+, modern mass media, and a general high-tech base to start with, the picture isn't anything like the above. That same 1 in 1000 people would mean 6 million creative spirits in this world, and anything they come up with, reaches far corners of the world in no-time. Then a single genius isn't as important as it used to be. Rather, you have some sort of 'environment', where scientific knowledge and creative works move in certain directions. At some point in time, the next step/development will become 'obvious' (read: very likely), and then... somebody (one of those many gifted folks) will do it. If that specific individual wouldn't, somebody else would. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, doesn't make much difference to society.
Copyright has a totally different meaning and effect in that situation (IMHO, something that is only about economics, and/or politics). Not to say that brilliant individuals don't matter anymore, but there's always enough of them to go round, copyright locks or not.The supreme courts decision is a sound one. Those folks tried to freeload on the work of others and only thought of the "non-infringing use [ha!ha!]" when they where dragged to court.
Let me add that the direction copyright legislation is taking worldwide and specifically in the US is appaling, but that doesn't make it right to get rich quick on the expense of others.
Even if those others are such a depicable, rotten and corrupt organization as the RIAA.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
There was an intersting exchange on Slate about Grokster. One of the points made it that the rule announced is basically a rule of etiquette. This seems a good analogy, and points out the limited effect.
What will be intersting is when this ruling is put up against non-commerical products. Commerical speech is subject to a lower level of protection. Non-commerical speech is not as limited, and I don't know that applying this ruling to a non-commerical sitution would be more of a speech problem.
Second: EFF legal victories since its founding - from the Steve Jackson Games Secret Service raid to the Diebold memos. Has EFF won every case? No. Few advocacy groups do. But you don't get to throw around statements like "[a]ll their cases have failed miserably" without some facts to back you up. You don't have them.
Thanks Tom Cruise. Go take your L. Ron Hubbard vocabulary somewhere else. You've got no business preaching that word "meme" around here. ;)
You're nothing; like me.
When supporting the EFF in words, how about with funding? There is theSummit 2005, on Thursday July 28, 2005 in Las Vegas...
o n/323.html ])
At the end of Black Hat and the beginning of DEFCON this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON & Black Hat speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.
Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ with the sponsor covering event overhead.
theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.
Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!
For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
http://www.dc702summit.org/home/
Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation, and by the members of DEFCON 702.
We all hope to see you there!
(as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defc
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but wtf?! What are these? http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/
Rucker
I don't buy your argument that the EFF hasn't won any battles. But let's assume for a moment that I do. You've convinced me that the EFF is counter-productive. Given that there are many corporate and political interests in the US that want to limit our civil liberties and control what we can do online, how will removing the EFF from the battle help us, and what would you propose in its place?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Reno v ACLU was a set of consolidated cases. Congress passed the Exxon-Coats bill which would have prohibited online indecency. A flock of people sued. By the time it got to the supreme court, the lead counsel were Ann Beeson for the ACLU, Mike Godwin for EFF, and I think David Sobel for, was it EPIC or CPSR. Reasonable question.
Organization + gathering helps the more powerful adversary.
But when you're a weak enemy fighting a strong enemy, hierarchical organization means that your leaders get targeted and killed. The key is to coordinate movements without becoming too organized.
In these kinds of wars, most people are often innocent civilians. The weaker enemy can sometimes gain an advantage by coaxing the stronger enemy to attack blindly. The effect is to radicalize the otherwise innocent and apathetic population when bystandars are killed. This is what Sinn Fein did, for instance, in Ireland.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I fear this has something to do with Godwins Law... but I'm unsure how it applies exactly. *Hmmm* Let me think...
GRAMMAR NAZI!
This may, overall, be good.
The Madpenguin interview TFA starts by pointing out a study that indicates Copyright infringement may be good for Microsoft.
I think that this probably can be extended to the MPAA, RIAA and friends -- in fact, there's the infamous stats that showed a CD buying spree as napster's fortunes rose, and the popping almost the week that napster got shut down.If you want to hurt the copyright cartels, obviously the best thing to do is discourage your friends from comitting copyright infringement and encourage them to by local and independently sourced music. and/or music or software that is under an open license. This also tends to result in more money staying in the local economy (good for you in the long run).
Just like Linux has forced Microsoft to produce better software, lower their pricing and even give at least lip service to 'open' (cough cough) standards, if your friends start ignoring content that is copy protected and going for stuff with permissive customer rights, then those companies are going to have to respond in kind to keep their market share.
What I liked about grokster was the peer-to-peer distribution network. What I disliked about it is that they openly encouraged copyright violation that effectively supported the mega-corps. This Supreme Court decision seems to open up the possibility of a peer to peer company that actually promotes independent music over the mass market pablum.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
... responsible for WMDs?
For clearly what other possible intent could there be in the manufacturing and sale of such items?
Or at least this is the thought that comes quickly to mind in reading about this grokster case.
Now I'm not an expert on Hubbardisms, but I strongly suspect that the word you're thinking of is "engrams".