Grokster Shutting Down?

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo news is reporting that Grokster is shutting down. In a settlement with Hollywood and the music industry Grokster will be permanently banned from 'participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software.'" A continuation on their deal with Mashboxx, or the end of grokster entirely?

Comments

Quite simply...

[drgonzo59]

This sucks!

Re:Quite simply...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the first post get modded redundant?

Re:Quite simply...

[drgonzo59]

Welcome to Slashdot, here anything can happen ;-)

Re:Quite simply...

[timster]

Posts asking "how does the first post get modded redundant" should hereafter be modded "Redundant", as this question has been asked and answered over and over again.

Re:Quite simply...

[Skreems]

But then YOU should be modded redundant... but then so should I... oh crap, recursion!

What'd they do to PJ???

[Wabbit Wabbit]

Oh. Grokster.

never mind.

Re:What'd they do to PJ???

[happyfrogcow]

That's really what I read at first too. I almost lost it.

But Grokster... I could take it or leave it. I've never used it. The only suspicious thing is not being able to distribute their software anymore. There are far more dangerous things that are still allowed to be sold

Re:What'd they do to PJ???

[Wabbit Wabbit]

But Grokster... I could take it or leave it. I've never used it. The only suspicious thing is not being able to distribute their software anymore. There are far more dangerous things that are still allowed to be sold

100% agreed.

Well...

[DrEldarion]

or the end of grokster entirely?

Regardless of if it's the end of the software, it's the end of the spirit.

Re:Well...

[DrEldarion]

Yes, the "spirit". Regardless of the legalities behind everything, the spirit of the network was free sharing of files. Once files are restricted, that spirit is gone.

Re:Well...

[squiggleslash]

You can still share files. It's just more difficult to do so anonymously than it was previously. The World Wide Web still exists. BitTorrent still exists. Usenet (barely) still exists.

Nothing stops anyone from setting up a P2P system that promotes responsibility, say, by requiring those who put files up for redistribution digitally sign and certify them so that any potential complaints about copyright can go back to a named individual. The complete absense of such a system, in my view, legitimizes complaints by the content industry that, for the most part, the major P2P networks were designed primarily to facilitate piracy.

Good riddance to Grokster, and let's hope that compromises that ensure networks exist to transfer genuinely free content while copyright holders still have some control over their works and have some assurances that they'll be able to deal easily with violations without affecting innocent parties come into being. We need them. We need a free network, not an illegal one.

Their Web site says:

[dptalia]

"There are plenty of services where you can download music and movies legally. This is not one of them." Yikes!

Re:Their Web site says:

[Buran]

So if they're claiming the service isn't legal, doesn't that make them guilty of perjury for claiming that it was? This seems to me like basically admitting that you lied under oath. They should have said, "This software isn't available anymore" without explaining why.

Not that they're still needed; the gnutella design doesn't require a central server to operate, and lots of open-source alternatives exist.

Re:Their Web site says:

[squiggleslash]

I don't think you commit perjury if you're wrong, only if you lie. But IANAL.

On top of which, even lying, when you're a defendant, isn't a guaranteed perjury charge. For example, plenty of people have been found guilty of committing crimes that they pleaded "Not Guilty" to.

Re:Their Web site says:

[Buran]

True, but it seems to me like a case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court based on your claiming A, then your suddenly claiming B ... you made false representations of some kind for it to get that far, so it'd be more closely looked at.

If they claimed "we aren't illegal" and now say "we are", there's some lying going on, in one spot or another.

Re:Their Web site says:

[squiggleslash]

Nope. It's only lying if they lied. If they thought it was legal, and they've been told since, by SCOTUS no less, that it isn't, then they weren't lying, and aren't now.

Re:Their Web site says:

[Buran]

It's only illegal if you advertise permitting illegal activities, though. Just downloading a file isn't illegal since not all files are illegal. That's the problem I have with it. I guess it's just me, but I'm sick of seeing legitimate tools killed by big business and the government that constantly goes out of its way to help big business over the citizen.

Banned from "stealing"?

[the_skywise]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Propaganda from the AP

[Anonymous Coward]

The article begins, "Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online,"

Uh, wait, I thought file-sharing technology was used for a variety of things. Yeah, it's mostly file-swapping of copyrighted material, but hardly the only use. According to the AP, let's just ignore the legal uses entirely and pretend that the whole purpose of this technology was to steal.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[Wavicle]

IIRC, Grokster lost their case because they advertised themselves as a great way to get movies and music for free. Essentially marketing themselves as a conduit for copyright infringement. So much so that people were confused and actually believed they were downloading the stuff legally. (Don't start on how could someone think that, I won't argue the qualities of human ignorance.)

There are plenty of good uses for P2P. Copyright infringement, while popular, is not a "good" use.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[StarvingSE]

If we follow the logic of the **AA's, we should shut down all interstate highways as well. It has been shown that interstate highways are used to transport illegal drugs, firearms, etc. (legal uses be damned!)

Yeah, sounds stupid doesn't it? This is business with grokster is no different.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[slackmaster2000]

I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally. It's the very last place I'd ever look to legally obtain software or media. I would in every single case get the material direct from the author's website, or via some legitimate web service, searching P2P as a last resort (so "last resort" that I've never had to do it). I'm not saying that it's not possible to use P2P networks for legit reasons, and I'm not saying that on occasion people do obtain legal materials from them. Really though, it's not a good way for an author to market something (no tracking, no content control, no targeting, etc), and it's not a convenient way for the consumer to retrieve something (file descriptors can be poor, you get queued up, you have to share back to get good rates with some services, etc).

The one giant exception here is Bittorrent, which is the most exciting P2P idea that's ever come out, in my opinion. BT by its very nature encourages the distribution of *legitamate* content because it a) allows the author to create and maintain a torrent that isn't connected to some vast network of crap, b) torrents can be "distributed" via websites, which is where you want your consumer to be, c) the consumer gets faster downloads, d) the author pays for less bandwidth. Bittorrent also, in my mind, kind of discourages the distribution of illegal content because torrent files themselves have to be hosted somewhere/somehow, thereby perhaps removing a layer of anonimity (at least the host could be held accountable).

Anyhow, while the original intent of the first P2P networks might not have been to distribute illegal content...it is certainly the primary task of such networks today (aside from bittorrent type networks).

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[The Eagle Maint]

No different, except that most likely a much greater percentage of traffic through Grokster is illegal than on an interstate highway.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[jfengel]

The difference is that the interstate highways aren't advertised for the purpose of doing illegal things, and they take at least some preemptive measures to ensure that they're not used that way.

Grokster might have had an easier case if they had made at least a cursory effort to prevent illegal file sharing. As it is they made it clear that they expected and encouraged you to trade files illegally, and that was going to cause them headaches in court.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[OneSeventeen]

{{BEGIN SARCASM}}
But I really do need to backup my X-Box games!! And I use P2P to share family photos with my grandma, isn't that what it was made for?
{{END SARCASM}}

I definitely agree with you on this one, P2P is by nature a file-sharing/content-stealing platform. If everyone just used Bittorrent for legit files (which they pretty much do) and didn't install P2P software then we'd pretty much be in a good place right now, but instead people still feel the weird desire to download the horrible crap that is RIAA labeled music without paying the band.

If a movie/song is worth stealing, then it is certainly worth buying. I mean, c'mon, just watch TV and listen to the radio if you are that dependent on the media. I used to download tons of crap, then I had something as simple as my taillights on my truck stolen, and realized how crappy it feels. I'd love for someone defending the downloading of movies and music to have something small stolen every day or two and see how they like it.

But yes, BitTorrent is P2P done right, and from my experience, it works much better than any P2P client ever has, and it is harder to download illegal content without someone getting into trouble. No wonder we don't hear as much about it in the news, other than to hear another moron got caught hosting torrents for someone else's intellectual property.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[Dingbat1066]

Inability to form a coherent argument eh?

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[tepples]

Peer-to-Peer networks are evil except for "Bittorrent type"[sic] networks?

This is what the entertainment industry believes. A P2P file sharing system designed to preserve accountability would allow infringements to be easily traced to a perpetrator, discouraging rather than "inducing" infringement. Under BitTorrent, it takes a person to run a tracker, make a .torrent file, and upload the .torrent file to the tracker, and no express provisions are made for anonymity. Thus BitTorrent makes it easier to trace an act of infringement than Gnutella or KaZaA or eMule does, making it more likely to prevail under the MGM v. Grokster test.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[m50d]

I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally. It's the very last place I'd ever look to legally obtain software or media. I would in every single case get the material direct from the author's website, or via some legitimate web service, searching P2P as a last resort (so "last resort" that I've never had to do it). I'm not saying that it's not possible to use P2P networks for legit reasons, and I'm not saying that on occasion people do obtain legal materials from them. Really though, it's not a good way for an author to market something (no tracking, no content control, no targeting, etc), and it's not a convenient way for the consumer to retrieve something (file descriptors can be poor, you get queued up, you have to share back to get good rates with some services, etc).

The playlist sharing makes it a very convenient way to get music. You find a playlist from someone with a bunch of songs you already have on it (the software helps you), and then just right click to download any others. I think there are dedicated programs like irate that do this with specifically free music, and of course you can just use audioscrobbler and search for the songs once you find a band you like, but it's still a nice way to do things.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[slackmaster2000]

I agree, a person most certainly *could* use file-sharing P2P networks for legitimate reasons. No question. I just believe that this is a very, very rare exception. People in the "industries" who argue against P2P networks have pretty good reasons to be upset (whether we like these people or not).

I think that P2P should be legal because we already have copyright laws that should encompass all of this, no need to get specific IMHO. Plus, poorly worded legislation could affect technologies like Bittorrent that are currently being used by companies to distribute materials (in fact I'm seeing torrents more and more these days from all kinds of different companies).

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[Buran]

Uh, where did they say that? They made a big deal out of being able to get movies, music, etc. online -- but there ARE legally-distributed books, movies, songs, etc. on the net that are shared over P2P apps. It's not up to them to ensure that's what you look for, since the software is by design intended to allow anyone to share anything -- that's why it's so powerful.

It is up to you, the user, to make sure you are not doing anything illegal, and you're the one who's rightly held liable if there's a complaint about your actions.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[MonkeyOfRage]

The one giant exception here is Bittorrent, which is the most exciting P2P idea that's ever come out, in my opinion. BT by its very nature encourages the distribution of *legitamate* content because it a) allows the author to create and maintain a torrent that isn't connected to some vast network of crap, b) torrents can be "distributed" via websites, which is where you want your consumer to be, c) the consumer gets faster downloads, d) the author pays for less bandwidth. Bittorrent also, in my mind, kind of discourages the distribution of illegal content because torrent files themselves have to be hosted somewhere/somehow, thereby perhaps removing a layer of anonimity (at least the host could be held accountable).

I'm not sure this any of this really marks Bittorrent as unique. Or even ideal. Certainly, the legality of the content shared does not mark it as a 'giant exception' - I've yet to see a tracker that wasn't at least 95% pilfered IP (though admittedly I haven't looked very hard for one), and a quick skim of the first 5 Google results for "torrent tracker" doesn not admit an impression to the contrary.

a) The "vast network of crap" is irrelevant, since you're only exposed to it when searching. If it's a problem, I'd suggest that it could be alleviated by better searching habits (more accurate terms, and use filters). Aside from that, and a modest amount of bandwidth responding to search requests, it doesn't affect availability, usability, or performance in any way.
b) Magnet links allow you to "distribute" content for gnutella, ed2k, Kazaa etc. from your web site. Mapraider.com is a great example of a site distributing lots of perfectly legal content via p2p. Magnet links allow you to link to one specific source for the file if you like, or link to the file's SHA1 hash (the equivalent of saying "just search for it").
c) Neither partial file sharing (uploading the bits of a file you've partially downloaded) nor swarming transfers (downloading from many sources) are unique to BT. I routinely get combined single file transfer speeds using Bearshare (my preferred Gnutella client) in excess of anything I've ever gotten from any torrent.
d) The author also pays for less bandwidth. In fact, once the file is in the wild, the author needn't pay for any bandwidth at all.
e) In my gnutella client of choice, file sources are less anonymous than in any torrent client I've used. I have an IP and a host mask for every source - and could even chat with many of them, if I were so inclined.

Other clients go beyond BT in plenty of ways, also. I've only used a couple of torrent clients, but none of them offered anything like this -

a) That "vast network of crap" is actually handy. If the same file is being served from 6 different trackers, those are 6 independant pools of sources. If you're downloading from one, the the other five pools of sources are excluded. When downloading a file in my gnutella client, it aquires new sources across the network as part of the process, potentially letting every instance of the file be included.
b) None of those 6 file sources would have had to go through the bother of setting up a torrent and tracker and distributing the torrent with another client. They could have stuck it in their library and been done with it. Unless they wanted a magnet link I suppose, then they might have to throw in two extra mouse clicks.
c) Have you ever wanted to control your sharing? You can manage an entire library of shared content. I can easily see when there are 50 sources for a file that I'm sharing, and unshare it to increase the availability of files with fewer sources. I can also throttle my incoming and outgoing bandwidth, set the number of up/download slots, etc.
d) Have you ever gotten a torrent partially downloaded and had it stop, never to resume? Just because somethin

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[MonkeyOfRage]

Thus BitTorrent makes it easier to trace an act of infringement than Gnutella or KaZaA or eMule does, making it more likely to prevail under the MGM v. Grokster test.

I'm not sure I understand how; could you give an example?

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[Husgaard]

I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally.

I guess you haven't followed the supreme court case against Grokster, or read any of the many amicus briefs supporting the respondents because they were afraid that the supreme court could outlaw p2p. Creative commons summarized it nicely when they said "p2p networks enable a kind of protected speech that would otherwise be economically infeasible in their amucus brief.

And I don't understand why you think that Bittorrent is any different. Just like the other p2p systems Bittorrent is simply a system for copying digital files from one user to another, and just like the other systems Bittorrent is just to create both legal and illegal copies. Your points a) and b) can just as easily be applied to illegal copying with Bittorrent, and your points c) and d) are also valid with other p2p systems.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[patio11]

I totally agree on filesharing networks and Bittorrent. However, there are some other P2P networks (which are less used than filesharing, which is not synonymous with P2P just because it is the most popular app) which have socially redeeming features. P2P distributed caches or P2P computation grids, for example. P2P is just a technology, like anything else -- you take the "server" out or mostly out of the client-server paradigm, thats it. What you do with that is as open as any other CS meta-technology.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[ClamIAm]

Also, copyright infringement is not theft . It does not deprive anyone of property, only royalties, which are an artificial right given (or taken, depending on how you look at it) by governments.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[djdavetrouble]

I see a people that were ready for digital media vs. an established status quo that wasn't about to loose its grasp. What began as a small snowball of in the know computer users turned into an avalanche of digital distribution of everything, for everyone. Now the status quo is scrambling to regain lost ground, with some new players changing the rules of the game mid quarter. Even real rentals are wierd now, with netflix in the mix. I just can't see it continuing like this, collecting tons and tons of data isnt as fun as collecting vinyl records. I can't believe I filled up my third hard drive, now I have to burn some dvd-rs to add to my 512 page binder.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[shark72]

"I thought file-sharing technology was used for a variety of things. Yeah, it's mostly file-swapping of copyrighted material, but hardly the only use."

Yup, you're correct. That's why the quote you provided stated that it was popular for copyright violation... not used exclusively for copyright violation. In other words, lots of people used it for copyright violation, but the article didn't claim that all of Grokster's customers did. Re-read that quote and I think you'll see what I mean.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[ydra2]

"then I had something as simple as my taillights on my truck stolen, and realized how crappy it feels."

I remember how awful it was when somebody stole my headlight. I was in the car out in the parking lot one cold night, just letting the engine warm up when some nasty thief came up and used my headlight to check something in his wallet. Damned thieves have no right to steal my light!

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[mrsev]

Your arguments that bittorrent is a pancea of P2P is niave. Bit torrent is very good for popular content but very poor at rare content. There are many many movies books and sound recordings that are out of copyright. These can be shared for free.

There are some things that can not be bought for love nor money. I will give you an example. There were two mini series written by Dennis Potter on his deathbed. The first being Karaoke and the second Cold Lazarus. These two were works of pure genius. The BBC and C4 refuse to release the mini-series in any format. What to do?

There are many more books and other works that are now in the public domain but that are only availible on P2P networks due to the huge storage space availible from all the participants. If they are not kept alive they will dissapear!

.

Temporary Victory

[mysqlrocks]

"This is a chapter that ends on a high note for the recording industry, the tech community and music fans and consumers everywhere," said Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America.

This is a temporary victory only for the RIAA. They can't change the fact that their business model is becoming obsolete.

Re:Temporary Victory

[goldspider]

"They can't change the fact that their business model is becoming obsolete."

Their business model is only half of it. Freeloaders are the other half.

Re:Temporary Victory

[supun]

What do you mean? They get their share from services like iTunes, Napster, and the other legal music download services. Internet stations, like Radio Free Colorado, pay something like $0.07 a song. The RIAA gets their cut of that. So in fact, their business model is changing and not becoming obsolete.

BTW: All those Pepsi adds where they look like they are anti-RIAA make me laugh, since the RIAA made cash from the legal music downloads.

Re:Temporary Victory

[hador_nyc]

I think he means more of the fact that the CD-Record (album) sales model is disappearing . It's entirely possible that the artists will release their music directly to iTunes - Napster - Yahoo (web distro) and skip the RIAA altogether. I'm fustrated about all the great rock bands that I hear here in the city (I live in Manhattan) that never get noticed by them. I buy lots of CDs from these guys, and I'm not really a music nut; just an engineer who likes the little bands as much as the big ones like Greenday, etc... Will the big guys adapt, probably; so I'd say you're both right. The existing model does seem to be coming to an end, and that is somewhat of a threat. It's more likely that they will simply adapt, but possible that they will fail to do so; like AT&T.

Re:Temporary Victory

[Jace of Fuse!]

Freeloaders are the other half.

Freeloaders are smarter than they are, and for every Napster and Grokster user that gets annoyed by a service that "goes legal" and requires fee based downloads, there are dozens of other users who have figured out ways to trade files illegally under the radar.

Invitation based file-trading email-lists, for example. IRC. Direct file transfer in IM Clients. Private FTP sites. Even private web-sites. The list goes on.

Re:Temporary Victory

[Mr2001]

No, the problem is that their business model does not take into account freeloaders, much less try to make use of them, and that is why it is obsolete.

Exactly. A solid business model isn't threatened by people who choose not to play along. You don't see retail stores going out of business because of shoplifting, for example, because stopping shoplifters is practical and nonintrusive - all you have to do is watch the people in your store. Stopping illegal file sharing, on the other hand, is a fantasy.

Re:Temporary Victory

[bit01]

Freeloaders are the other half.

You mean the freeloaders in their offices in Hollywood? Or the freeloaders acting in movies who actually think it's reasonable they should be paid millions of dollars for a few hours work because of broken IP law? Surely you don't mean the freeloaders who download copies of content and probably wouldn't have bought anything anyway?

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

Re:Temporary Victory

[goldspider]

"Or the freeloaders acting in movies who actually think it's reasonable they should be paid millions of dollars for a few hours work because of broken IP law?"

WTF does IP law have to do with the $$$ actors/actresses are being paid?

"Surely you don't mean the freeloaders who download copies of content and probably wouldn't have bought anything anyway?"

Are you one of those people who believes that such "content" (music, movies, software, etc.) should be free to everyone, and that the producers of said content shouldn't be compensated for their work?

Get a clue; the media industries aren't charities.

Re:Temporary Victory

[bit01]

WTF does IP law have to do with the $$$ actors/actresses are being paid?

Quite a lot. The privileged few in Hollywood would be paid orders of magnitude less and other artists paid more for a start if IP law was more rational rather than "winner take all".

Are you one of those people who believes that such "content" (music, movies, software, etc.) should be free to everyone, and that the producers of said content shouldn't be compensated for their work?

No, stop trying to deliberately tar me with the RIAA/MPAA piracy tunnel vision framing the debate. I did not say that.

Get a clue; the media industries aren't charities.

Nope, they're a cartel where a small number of media royalty are making an extraordinary amount of money at the expense of the larger population. Just like royalty in the middle ages who thought they had a god given right to rule over the serfs. Funnily enough the law was conveniently in their favor too.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/MPAA/RIAA abuse.

Re:Temporary Victory

[goldspider]

"I did not say that."

Then what are you saying? That content providers should only be paid once for their work? (going by your sig) Who then is responsible for that one-time payment? How exactly is that supposed to work?

"Just like royalty in the middle ages who thought they had a god given right to rule over the serfs."

Except the "serfs" of your analogy don't depend on the "royalty" for their basic survival. If people didn't want the product that content producers are selling, then the media companies wouldn't be so rich. Nobody is forced to buy their product; the RIAA/MPAA aren't "abusing" anybody. Just because YOU don't feel like paying the same as everyone else doesn't entitle you to their product for free.

I suspect, though, that your stance is more about sticking it to the greedy Man than it is about reasonable goals like fair use.

The tech community????

[technoextreme]

"This is a chapter that ends on a high note for the recording industry, the tech community and music fans and consumers everywhere," said Mitch Bainwol, head of the Recording Industry Association of America.

Cue the almost unanimous outcry about how this guy is not speaking for us.

Re:The tech community????

[Rei]

Rabble Rabble!

Re:The tech community????

[GungaDan]

I'll see yer rabble rabble, and raise you one declaration of shenanigans. Clearly they spelled Bitch Mainwol's name wrong in the article.

I'm curious...

[skelly33]

as to what other kinds of software might be construed as having a hand "directly, or indirectly" in piracy and is subject to being shut down? Apache HTTP server? Outlook Email? Mozilla Firefox? "The Internet"?

It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power...

Re:I'm curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor can insurrections against countries ever gain traction.

Re:I'm curious...

[op12]

Actually, it's the power companies that are to blame. They are enabling piracy to occur. Piracy could obviously not happen if we didn't have power!

Re:I'm curious...

[geminidomino]

Could explain why Florida has such a low rate of copyright infringing downloads.

Flicker, Pillage and Larceny^W^WFlorida Power and Light, doing thier part as ??AA whores.

Re:I'm curious...

[91degrees]

Well, yes, those could be used for piracy, but almost all users of Grokster used ot for downloading music, movies, TV shows and computer software. The rest of the examples have "substantial non-infringing use". Grokster had occasional rare non-infringing use. A vast proportion of the use of HTTP and email is non infringing.

Re:I'm curious...

[patio11]

It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power...

It seems you just can't pull the wool over the eyes of judges after you've had your customer support give directions how to find specific copyrighted material on your network (page 1 of the opinion), positioned yourself as the new Napster by targetting ex-Napster users with a specifically designed client advertised to enable sharing copyrighted music (page 6 -- "Napster has announced that it may start charing a fee. Thats if the court don't order it shut it down first. What will you do to get around it?"), have a CTO who drops brilliant gems like "The goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued. Its the best way to get in the news" (page 6), built in a feature to search for guaranteed-copyrighted Top40 songs (page 7), identified copyrighted materials you could find on their network by name in a newsletter to users as an enticement to use the network (page 7), etc, etc.

But I'm sure this could all have been a misunderstanding and they really meant to say "Hey, you can get free Shakespeare on this network, and thats why you'd use it, ignore the millions of copyrighted songs which we really can't do anything about like the latest from your favorites Brittney Spears, Usher, and random-boy-band-of-the-week available for free today." You can read that argument in the opinion, too. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.p df

Re:I'm curious...

[ClamIAm]

cp, mv, disk backup tools, cdparanoia/cdrecord/Nero, AIM/Yahoo/MSN/Jabber/ZeroConf messengers, ftp, http, rsync, usenet, irc, BT (used by me to download Linux ISOs and CreativeCommons'd works), ZIP/RAR/TAR/GZ/7z/etc, virtual drive programs, wi-fi, ethernet, TCP/IP, IPX, AppleTalk. Routers, hubs, switches. IDE, SCSI, USB, Firewire, MIDI, non-DRM'd A/D converters, Serial, parallel, ADB. Debuggers. RAM that can be read. CD drives. Floppy drives. CDs. Floppy disks. ZIP disks. Cables that can carry data. Cameras. People with artistic skill who draw fan-art, write fanfiction, make fan movies, create clones of old games. Wikis. Forums. Transistors. Webhosts that don't pre-empt their users with iron fists. Copy machines. Pens, pencils and paper. People who quote movies. Musical instruments and musical training that allows a person to pick up a song by ear.

If the media cartels can manage to outlaw all these, they might stand a better chance of stopping those dirty pirates. Feel free to add ones I missed!

Re:I'm curious...

[shark72]

It's great that you're curious. A bit of Googling would've turned up the Supreme Court opinion on the case. It's about 50 pages, but it's worth a read if you're curious about why Grokster was ruled illegal, and say, Firefox would not be.

Here's the opinion. As I mentioned, good reading if you truly want to have a better understanding of what happened here.

"It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power..."

Sorry... many folks think justice prevailed here. Grokster was actively encouraging their customers to use the service for piracy, and from this they made millions and millions of dollars. Compare how Grokster operated compared to, say, BitTorrent or the iTunes Music Store, and I think you'll see what I mean.

Re:I'm curious...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I've thought this as well.

Cant we file suits against EVERYONE and EVERYTHING associated with internet technology? Cant we even sue Al Gore? ;)

Thats one hell of a lawsuit.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[TheRealMindChild]

Why would one PAY to share files?

no kidding

[conJunk]

"There are plenty of services where you can download music and movies legally. This is not one of them."

It's one thing to shut them down. It's another thing entirely to require them to say something that sounds like a scolded child. I can't *prove* sounding like a scolded child was part of the deal, but i don't think i'm out of line assuming that that statement is less than 100% voluntary

Re:no kidding

[ScentCone]

I can't *prove* sounding like a scolded child was part of the deal, but i don't think i'm out of line assuming that that statement is less than 100% voluntary

Pretty much like having people spread stolen screeners of your not-yet-released film to thousands or millions of best friends they've never met know isn't exactly 100% voluntary for the filmaker, either. I think that's the whole point.

Re:no kidding

[StarvingSE]

I think we can assume it is a bitch-smack from the courts, and not a voluntary action, seeing that there is a link to the respectcopyrights website on the bottom of the page.

Napster...

[Chickenofbristol55]

They'll probably be back, but you'll have to pay for the service.

Re:Napster...

[saintp]

Don't do something rash like RTFA and find out.

A new fee-based version of its software, which will permit only legal downloads, will be available within 60 days from a new parent organization, according to one executive involved in the deal.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[codergeek42]

Gnutella, eD2k, etc.

Not a big loss, really.

[Red Samurai]

Grokster was never really that popular anyway. Anyway, they can shut down whatever network they want, and they can arrest anyone they want, but they'll never kill P2P off. As long as pirates exist, P2P will exist. It's a fact.

Re:Not a big loss, really.

[deathy_epl ccs]

As long as pirates exist, P2P will exist.

This is not entirely correct... As long as pirates exist, they will utilize some form of technology to carry out their piracy, but it is incorrect to say, as your statement implies, that it has always been and will always be P2P. P2P is just one of the current common methods. Who knows what new forms it might take in the future.

Re:Not a big loss, really.

[m50d]

Grokster was the only decent legit client for fasttrack, which is still I think the most popular network, certainly used to be. I'm sad to see it go.

Re:Not a big loss, really.

[Anubis350]

How about giFT and all it's myriad clients for pretty much every operating system....

Re:Not a big loss, really.

[m50d]

The best windows one, KCeasy, got takedown'd and made to stop distributing the fasttrack plugin.

Re:Not a big loss, really.

[MegaFur]

As long as pirates exist, P2P will exist. It's a fact.

It's not a fact, it's a prediction. It's probably true, though.

Grokster is dead

[drgonzo59]

Long live Bittorrent!

Re:Grokster is dead

[nicklott]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4413540.stm

Re:Grokster is dead

[Norfair]

I think we should be okay as long as we don't round sharing Miss Congeniality.

** Puts on his "Slippery Slope Guy" hat **

[theSpaceCow]

participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files

I don't think I like such vague wording. How close to the pirating does software need to be in order to be "indirectly participating". Lots of pirated movies are encoded with Divx, are they next? Some come packed in RAR archives, how about them?

Hell, why not go for the gusto? Maybe it can be proven that the majority of pirates who rip and encode copyrighted media do so on Dell machines with Intel components running Microsoft Windows and we can take out the whole triumvirate.

Re:** Puts on his "Slippery Slope Guy" hat **

[harmless_mammal]

None of this stealing would be happening without Cisco...

Re:** Puts on his "Slippery Slope Guy" hat **

[shark72]

"I don't think I like such vague wording."

That's the summary, not the court opinion. The opinion is some 50 pages but I think it'll address your concerns. I know reading dry court opinions are a drag, but there's no better way to understand what happened here.

BTW, kudos to you for acknowledging that you're slippery sloping.

Re:** Puts on his "Slippery Slope Guy" hat **

[Browncoat]

Orrin Hatch might agree with you. He and his INDUCE act have done nothing but cause trouble.

They will not Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for the movie and record industries P2P already exists. Killing the specific tools, in this case grokster, is not going to end the treats and the downloading. They are going to find that in the end they are going to have to give up against an overwhelming force that is too much for them. They have already killed, or at least neutered, Napster and now they got grokster but they still will face more, such as the current bittorrent and will face more in the future. As long as they do not provide what the clients want, and theft is not the main reason P2P exists, they are going to continue to face what they see as threats to their wellbeing

should be in the clear then

[Scudsucker]

participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files

Too bad there has never been a single instance of "theft of copyrighted files" on any P2P network that has ever existed, or the Internet itself for that matter. Now copyright infringement is an entirely different kettle of fish, but I don't see anything in the summary about Grokster being banned from that.

Re:should be in the clear then

[ScentCone]

Too bad there has never been a single instance of "theft of copyrighted files" on any P2P network that has ever existed

Probably the closest thing to that would be when a filmaker sends a screener, under the terms of a strict agreement with the recipient, to critic or other party for preview. The screener stays the property of the filmaker, and the guy that takes that filmaker's data (even if they eventually return the original media) and gives it out to a couple hundred thousand special "friends" over the 'net can pretty safely be said to have stolen that material. Certainly by any reasonable person's evaluation of the situation (say, while sitting on a jury), that's not so different than running off with any other trade secret or other proprietary information. That scenario, of course, is scarcely imaginary. We've seen it many times already.

Re:should be in the clear then

[ScentCone]

You're not reading my actual words, here. If I hand you some data for you to look at, and we both agree that it's proprietary, sensitive data, and that you may not retain it any way... and then you go ahead and break your promise and make a copy anyway (bad enough), and then also go ahead and spread it online as well. That's why I cited the example I cited... it's happened. A film critic that walks away from an NDA-based review with a film he's not supposed to have has stolen it.

Re:should be in the clear then

[arose]

the guy that that filmaker's data (even if they eventually return the original media)

They should have used read only media. (Yes I know what you meant)

Re:should be in the clear then

[ScentCone]

Fine. Let's skip the semantics. You think the guy lying about his commitment to not spreading around the pre-release screener is morally just fine, and I think he's not. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you call it. It's unethical, it's a breach of trust, it's childishly grasping, and it's exactly what convinces artists, authors, filmakers, and everyone else that makes a living creating things with their minds that P2P and similar technologies are being widely used to avoid paying for entertainment. It's not a question of to what degree that's true. It's a fact, and events like that simply show how true it is.

Re:should be in the clear then

[westlake]

Too bad there has never been a single instance of "theft of copyrighted files" on any P2P network that has ever existed, or the Internet itself for that matter. Now copyright infringement is an entirely different kettle of fish, but I don't see anything in the summary about Grokster being banned from that.

In the popular mind, all crimes against property are "theft." The idea is ancient.

Fine distinctions are for the charge sheet and the courts. There is no hope of winning the propaganda argument against the rights agencies on this level.

Re:should be in the clear then

[Scudsucker]

In the popular mind, all crimes against property are "theft." The idea is ancient.

Arson and vandalism are crimes against property too, but I doubt many people get them mixed up with theft.

Fine distinctions are for the charge sheet and the courts. There is no hope of winning the propaganda argument against the rights agencies on this level.

I think the average person would understand the distinctions just fine, but the problem is that the government and the press are just mouthpeices for the RIAA and MPAA. Just within the last month I was watching CNN, and the anchor at the time was talking about how CD sales were down, because of piracy. No mention of other factors such as the economy, fewer albums being made, or the end of the bonanza of people upgrading their tape and vinyl collections.

Well, there are other ways..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. such as using your IRC client software to connect to the Undernet IRC network and joining the #mp3_collective and downloading all the free MP3's you want.

• type

  @find *band*name*

  to find the band you want
• type

  @username

  to get a list of his/her files so you can download them

grokster homepage text

[circletimessquare]

http://www.grokster.com/

The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed
that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal.
Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files
using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is
prosecuted by copyright owners.

There are legal services for downloading music and movies.
This service is not one of them.

Grokster hopes to have a safe and legal service available soon.

If you are interested in that service, go to www.grokster3g.com, or send an email to:

info@grokster3g.com

to be included in the beta for the next generation.

Re:grokster homepage text

[Kjella]

The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners.

Well doh, that's been the case for the last 200 years or so and hasn't changed. What the Supreme court tok a 9-0 vote on was that offering a service that endorsed or promoted copyright infringement was illegal. That is a very nice way of saying that they'd probably lose such a case and decided to settle.

Re:grokster homepage text

[Buran]

Uh, no, that's not what the court said. The court said that if you advertise that you foster illegal activity, you're illegal. Grokster advertised that you could download movies and music, etc. That is not illegal. It's only illegal if you go after files that aren't cleared for distribution -- and there's freely-redistributable movies and music out there. If that's what you're after and that's what you're sharing, you are not committing an illegal act -- and if there are legal ways to do what you advertise, you are not condoning illegal acts.

Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[srobert]

Back in the mid-twentieth century, a company called Xerox was producing a machine which could be used to illegally copy copyrighted materials in books. The courts ruled that the company had to stop making and selling the illegal technology and pay damages to the publishers. At least that's how I remember it.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[ScentCone]

Back in the mid-twentieth century, a company called Xerox was producing a machine which could be used to illegally copy copyrighted materials in books.

Sarcasm is a more useful rhetorical device when the truth that it (directly or indirectly) points out resonates with the sarcastic statement being made. But since Xerox didn't ever position its products as a way to "get free stuff" or spread around copyrighted works by the millions, their equipment's use in copyright infringement was despite their corporate position and publicly proclaimed admonishments. The P2P services that have found themselves in trouble have been loudly supporting piracy since the get-go. Intent is the difference, and lack of it makes your example fall flat. Maybe more fun to allude to old-style forgeries, counterfeiters, or all those other classical (and already blatantly understood as illegal) methods to make your point. Um, except the point wouldn't mean as much.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[crt]

If 99.99% of the usage for Xerox machines was copyright infringment I suspect they would have been quickly outlawed or restricted. In practice, the vast majority of use was for reproduction of legit material. Had 99.99% of the Grokster usage been legit, I think you would have seen a different outcome to all this.

That's why the RIAA isn't going after FTP servers, HTTP servers, IM file transfer features, etc - those technologies were created for non-infringing uses and are predominantly used that way. Anyone that thinks Grokster was created for sharing of only public-domain content is smoking crack.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[AK Marc]

If 99.99% of the usage for Xerox machines was copyright infringment I suspect they would have been quickly outlawed or restricted.

Well, go sit in a library and tell me what % there is in violation of copyrights. Yet, when the subject of libraries and such makes it to court, they are still protected and allowed to continue in their ways.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[ScentCone]

Except that we've seen recent court actions against P2Ps that expressly did get caught promoting their tools as pirate favorites, and the very same investigations and actions skipped over the services that were (like Xerox) loudly proclaiming that their services should be used to infringe. The all-too-obvious wink-wink tone of a lot of these services is what gets them in trouble. As it should. The BitTorrent universe remains different because of the tone that its creator has taken.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[crt]

Most copying done in libraries is likely covered under fair use (small portions of the overall piece, being used for research, discussion, and critique). I doubt you'll see many people making page-for-page copies of "The Da Vinci Code" - why bother when you can just borrow the book for free?
If comparing a library copy machine to Grokster is the best argument that can be made it's no wonder Grokster was shut down. People complain about the RIAA going after a "technology" (P2P) but the bottom line is that they didn't sue "P2P" and they didn't shut down "P2P". They sued the creators of two products - Napster and Grokster that were both created for, and primarily used for, copyright infringment.

Yes.. it's stupid that they are trying to support their outdated biz model by suing the companies using the very technology they should be adopting.. blah blah.. but trying to compare Grokster to Xerox doesn't hold water.
If anything we should be upset that the irresponsible management at Napster and Grokster that created and supported products primarily used for piracy that have since put all P2P technology in a poor light.

Re:Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[Audacious]

I would have to say that I had heard of a different case but similar to the Xerox case. The company was (if I remember correctly) Kodak. They had come out with a color copier that was just something else. It was so good that you could take a dollar bill, put in the right kind of paper, and produce exact copies of that bill.

If I remember it correctly (and it was a very long time ago), Kodak agreed to make their machine actually produce an anomaly on the paper after it went through the copier. I forget what the anomaly was, but it made it so banks et al could tell the forgery from the real thing.

(One of those strange but true kinds of things. :-) Kind of makes you wonder if this wasn't one of the reasons why the government decided to start putting all of those metallic threads, magnetic strips, et al into the paper money running around out there.)

Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Red Flayer]

"Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations...
... bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."

Righteous anger its-not-theft-there's-no-deprivation-of-property flamewar to begin in 3... 2... 1...

Seriously, though, if you want a certain company's product, pay for it. If you wouldn't pay $0.01 for it, then why bother downloading it at all?

And just to forestall the inevitable, NO, I DON'T WORK FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. I just believe that if you don';t think a product is worth the price offered, then you shouldn't buy the product... nor should you look to the black market for the product. Do without, it won;t kill you. And by not pirating the product, you won't help drive the *AA's assertions that they are losing a ton of cash to piracy.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Tyler Eaves]

Well, the simple reason is that there is no option to pay $0.01, only some rediculous price.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[arkhan_jg]

Doesn't do any good. I buy the product, I have to live with increasingly onerous DRM that imposes artificial restrictions on what I can do with the product, and doesn't slow down infringers in the slightest.

I don't buy the product, sales go down, and that's used to claim 'our sales have dropped - it must be pirates stealing it!' and they get laws which add even greater weight to DRM measures, thus making any products I do buy even more onerous to use.

Just for once, I'd like a lobby that supports the customers position get laws written for our benefit, or products made better instead of worse.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Travelsonic]

[blockquote]Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations... ... bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."

Nope, Grokster is a popular program for sharing not just movis and music, but software and documents as well as games, some legal, some not... and the flap is over copyright infringement... not theft... copyright infringement..... how many times must these people be fucking around with the language? Either that or the writers who wrote this were stoned and/or suseptible to bull and brainwash.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Red Flayer]

Some very good points, which I didn't address because they weren't in the scope of TFA or of my OP --

(1) Ridiculous DRM

Well, all this does is lower your perceived value of the product -- making you less likely to purchase it. It should lower everyone's perceived value of it, so maybe tons of people won't buy it.

(2) Falling sales figures used to calculate piracy levels

This is a huge problem. Hey, our sales are down -- it must be teh pirates! This is accounting that never should be allowed to fly.

"I'd like a lobby that supports the customers position get laws written for our benefit"

I'd like a car full of ice cream, but it won't happen unless I go out and buy the ice cream. Call or write to your legislator yet?

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[orasio]

It's not stealing, just because it's not stealing.

Suppose you had a girlfriend (just for the sake of the argument). If someone looks at your girlfriend in a weird way, you cant say it's a rapist. You can make all analogies you want, and say that the guy has X-ray goggles, but some guy who looks at your girlfriend is not f**kin your girlfriend. You can even say that you want him to pay, because she is a stripper, and charges for people looking at her tits, and he is causing you lost revenue.

This is much the same. People who copy songs or movies are not doing anything that they could go to jail for. It's a civil issue. They risk being sued. They are not thieves. They are copyright infringers. It's just another thing, and calling one thing with the name of another thing is not healthy, specially for legal stuff. It ends up contaminating the original concepts. The whole idea of copyright infringement not being theft is that copyright is not something sacred, it's just a "temporary" government granted monopoly, and by infringing that monopoly you might or might not hurt the guy that the monopoly was assigned to, so it's his decission to sue you or not.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[tradiuz]

What if I refuse to pay $20 for something I feel is only worth $5 (Many music CD's only have 3 good songs on them). Some movies are only worth watching once or twice a year. If I felt something wasnt worth $.01 then I wouldnt buy it, but if I felt that something was grossly overpriced (Paycheck, Swordfish, etc), I'll download it now, and then buy it once it hits the bargain bin where it belongs.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[ScentCone]

sales have dropped - it must be pirates stealing it!

And that claim (when it comes to products not selling, most likely because of poor quality in the first place), would indeed ring hollow if you couldn't immediately find hundreds or thousands of places "sharing" even the worst movies, all the time. It would be nice to say that they're BSing when it comes to the crappy movies, but the piracy is rampant on big (good) movies because lots of people don't feel like paying for their entertainment, and it's rampant on the not-very-good stuff because people think that it's not worth paying for it, so who will mind. It's too bad that the behavior you can actually see happening around in you in the P2P space does look exactly like what the content creators are complaining about. It makes them look... correct.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Red Flayer]

"And that claim (when it comes to products not selling, most likely because of poor quality in the first place), would indeed ring hollow if you couldn't immediately find hundreds or thousands of places "sharing" even the worst movies, all the time."

This doesn't really apply -- people willing to purchase for $0.00 != people willing to purchase for MSRP.

"but the piracy is rampant on big (good) movies because lots of people don't feel like paying for their entertainment"

This is where it is damaging to pirate movies, because it is fuel for the *AA's claims that they are losing revenue. The problem is that the *AAs claim that the 'lost sales' that can be extrapolated for the good flicks can also be extrapolated the same way for the crap films.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Red Flayer]

And still that download helps fuel the 'lost revenues' claim by the movie industry... What you should do here is just wait until it comes down in price. Reward the movie industry for lowering prices earlier, without adding fuel to their fire.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Stonehand]

It's not an asymmetrical situation. You don't want to buy? Fine. It's just as silly for you to claim the right to completely set the parameters of the transaction, however, just as much as you reject the idea of being forced to buy at $20 or so.

You're allowed to reject the vendor's terms -- just as much as he's allowed to reject yours. If you're not both happy, then there's no deal; you part with all your money, but no rights to his content other than what's legally allowed outside of any deal. That's fair.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Stonehand]

It can actually become a criminal issue under NETA, if memory serves -- but you have to exceed fairly high total-value thresholds within a certain time period.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[m50d]

If you wouldn't pay $0.01 for it, then why bother downloading it at all?

I would pay $0.01 for it. But nowhere's willing to sell it to me for less than 1GPB.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[arose]

Except for the 50+ year monopoly they have...

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[Snaller]

Seriously, though, if you want a certain company's product, pay for it. If you wouldn't pay $0.01 for it, then why bother downloading it at all?

Because you don't know if its worth the 0.01 until after you have downloaded it?

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[squiggleslash]

That's a poor analogy. Does looking at your girlfriend in a weird way have the same affects as if she's raped? Almost certainly not.

However, if you make a copy of something you'd otherwise have bought, does the content producer or the producer's publisher no longer have something they otherwise would have had while you have something you otherwise wouldn't (eg has the same affect as theft)? Answer: of course! You have content, the publisher doesn't have the money they would have received for that content.

Now, that doesn't mean (and I know people will have started replying after the second paragraph even though it was carefully worded, because people are dumb and do kneejerk responses) I think all cases of copyright infringement are legitimately compared to theft. People do "try before they buy" and at least three P2P users use P2P for that reason. But there are at least some. If the general belief by those opposing a particular method of copyright infringement is that, in general, most transactions are similar to that described above, and that over-all, most users are using it as a substitute for legitimately purchasing content, then, yeah, it's legitimate for them to compare it to theft and describe it as theft.

Is there a difference between stealing a physical CD from a store and copying someone's CD? Answer: well, ignoring the numbers of victims in both, this really depends on the circumstances. If you copy a CD you'd never have bought, then no, it's not comparable to stealing a CD, whether you'd have bought that CD or not. If you copy a CD that you'd have bought otherwise, then, yes, the comparison is very similar. The fact the first involves 50c of plastic doesn't change the equation that much.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[orasio]

That's the "stripper" part of the weird analogy.
I was saying that listening without paying is much the same as looking without paying.

Of course you can say you want people to pay you to look at something or to listen to something. Of course, you can articially limit access to your content, so they can't listen or look without paying.
The fact is that if they listen or look ar something without paying, it's just tough luck for you. The only thing that protects you is some government granted monopoly on distribution, but you expectations to sell something, and the lost revenue, compared to your expectations, is not comparable to losing property, because, well, because it's just not. There's no reasoning that leads from one to the other, aside from the "lost revenue" issue. The problem is that property does have a somewhat objective value, and revenue expectations don't, so even that issue does not hold water. The monopoly on distribution is not property, it's a contract. Breaking that monopoly would be something like a breach of contract, not a theft, it's too different from theft to call it like that.
It's like saying that when I bake my own bread I am stealing the bakery their expected revenue, even if they had a monopoly on bread making, and I used their recipe, it's not theft, it's just another thing, and what applies to theft, doesn't apply to this.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[arkhan_jg]

I'd like a car full of ice cream, but it won't happen unless I go out and buy the ice cream. Call or write to your legislator yet?

Heh. Actually, I have. Repeatedly. The UK office of fair trading don't care, and the home office work on the principle that anything that big business wants is automatically a good thing. My local MP doesn't really understand the problem, and just refers me to both of the above. Such is life alas.

Re:Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP

[arkhan_jg]

We could probably argue this back and forth repeatedly. Still, sales of copyrighted works are at an all time high at the moment, despite the large amount of infringement going on at P2P services. iTMS is doing pretty well considering the infringement. Plus there was that study that showed that people 'trying before buying' might actually increase sales.

In the end of the day though, the DRM only makes the product worth LESS than the illegal copies, and does nothing to prevent infringement. If they managed to make a completely transparent system that actually stops illegal copying but not legal copying, they'd be onto something, but I don't see how such a thing is possible.

It is irritating though that when I boycott Sony for example because of their latest rootkit, they'll treat that boycott as justification to make an even worse rootkit. Which is where we came in, I think...

Article Says BitTorrent is a Service

[putko]

The article says "BitTorrent" is a service.

Is this true? I thought it was a file transfer protocol.

Re:Article Says BitTorrent is a Service

[varmittang]

Well, its a client and a protocol. But if everyone was to drop using the client that you get from the official Bitorrent site, then it would just be a protocol. And if Bitorrent does gets sued for having its client, and they shutdown, it wont shutdown the network that it has created since there are a bunch of clients out there. Like FastTrack protocol has Kazaa, Imesh, and Grobster clients on it.

Re:Article Says BitTorrent is a Service

[m50d]

Protocols and services are pretty much the same thing as far as the internet's concerned.

Color me late

[multiplexo]

to the BitTorrent game but after installing BT this weekend and downloading SuSE 10 (yes it took 12 hours, but I started it before I went to bed and had the ISO images the next day) it seems to me that decentralized P2P was going to be the wave of the future even if MGM v. Grokster hadn't gone the way it had.

Of course given the stupidity and greed of the **AAs it would not surprise me to see them attempt to crush BT either by going after Bram Cohen or by having their bought and paid for congresscritters write an exceptionally broad addendum to the DMCA that would ban any development or distribution of P2P software. Of course the inevitable consequences of such a ban will be disastrous, but they'll take several election cycles to materialize, which is far beyond the horizon of the aforementioned congresscritters.

More to come from RIAA?

[Bandraginus]

When "studies" show that this doesn't make a dent in the number of files being copied each year, do you think the RIAA will become aware that their business model just isn't working? Ok, maybe that's too optimistic. But they've been going after Grokster for a while now... I hope they weren't seriously thinking that this will change people's attitudes.

So what's next for the RIAA? Where do they go from here?

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[slavemowgli]

Well, in order to make sure that the software company has your name, credit card number and everything on file, of course, so that when they're sued and have to surrender their customer data, you can expect a visit from the men in black soon...

(Just to make sure, that was ironic, of course. In reality, I have no idea why anyone would pay for such a service, either, *especially* if they're going to use it for copyright infringement purposes (which I do not advocate)).

Yep

[42Penguins]

I, for one, use file-sharing software EXCLUSIVELY for Linux Distros and public domain E-Books...Yeah, right.

Re:Yep

[Musteval]

Sadly enough, I really do. Seriously. Oh, and that public domain sci-fi movie that came out a while ago.

Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft confirms it. Grokster is dead.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[varmittang]

eDonkey
Overnet
Emule-kademlia
BitTorrent
Fasttrack (Kazaa, Imesh, Grobster)
FileTP (FTP/HTTP downloads)
Gnutella (Bearshare, Limewire,etc)
Gnutella2 (Shareaza)
Soulseek
Direct-Connect
Opennap

Most of them are accessable by using a MLdonkey client, some are still in the works. MLdonkey Can be found at http://www.nongnu.org/mldonkey/

Timeline:

[voice_of_all_reason]

1990: We'll add passwords for computer games. Piracy "stopped."
1995: We'll copy-protect audio CDs. Piracy "stopped."
1997: We'll copy-protect DVDs. Piracy "stopped."
2001: We'll shut Napster down. Piracy "stopped."
2002: We'll shut Kazaa down. Piracy "stopped."
2005: We'll shut Grokster down. Piracy...

Re:Timeline:

[dascandy]

Was kazaa stopped? Why am I /STILL/ running Kazaa then? With pretty good search results?

Re:Timeline:

[burns210]

Because, AFAIK, Gnuetella and Kazzaa (and others) are just that hardcore. They don't require central servers (AKA: a company) to be in place for the clients to form and function as a network. This is why Napster was able to be shutdown so easily, the index of music available on Napster was loaded into a live database at Napster HQ, not in a distributed index across the clients.

It is, practically speaking, not possible to shut down modern p2p applications, once released into the wild, because they programs themselves form the network. Of course, if there are bugs, or lacking features, you need some central codebase to improve upon, etc.

Re:Timeline:

[Richard_at_work]

So the industry should just give up? The moment that happens is the moment they stop selling anything at all, and then what will people pirate? You can say all you want about the RIAA and MPAA not putting out anything worth listening to or watching, but that very same stuff seems to be incredibly popular on the filesharing networks, so someone seems to be enjoying it.

Opensource software is popular because its so widespread, and thats because it has such a low cost of entry for a programmer. Vi, a compiler (or interpreter) and you are set to go, been the same since BASIC was bundled with a computer (my earliest experience was teh C64).

Unfortunately, the same cant be said for music or movies - the cost of entry is a lot higher, and a lot less people have the talent to pull it off. I hold the people who can play musical instruments or sing or act in high regard, they are doing something I could never do.

Re:Timeline:

[Anonymous Coward]

More like:

1980: We'll add copy protection to games. Piracy stopped.
1985: We'll physically damage disks as part of our copy protection. Piracy stopped.
1987: We'll make you look up keywords in a game manual before the game starts up. Piracy stopped.
1990: Ooh shiny! We can put games on CDs. No one will be able to store that much info on their teeny hard drives. Piracy stopped.

Re:Timeline:

[Zed2K]

I think its more of a

"ooo...i got quake 18 yesterday and it doesn't even come out till next week."
"can i have a copy?"
"sure, but it sucks, its just like quake 1-17, I already tried it for an hour and quit from boredom and deleted it"

Re:Timeline:

[fbjon]

Of course, if there are bugs, or lacking features, you need some central codebase to improve upon, etc.

No problem, just open-source it. Suddenly there's a java port of the client on sourceforge, a myriad of clients sporting new features and increased resilience, and an entire cvs tree on Freenet.

Ok so that last one is pretty unrealistic as of yet, but otherwise... a good and popular enough P2P program just won't be shut down.

Re:Timeline:

[Clod9]

> a lot less people have the talent to pull it off
Talent to pull what off? Great songs with professional sound quality and instrumentation? This is not expensive, and there are tens of thousands of musicians who have the ability to do it. They just don't get noticed. What's popular is only made so through marketing, it isn't because it's inherently better than the 99% that doesn't get nationwide/worldwide attention.

The equipment to make great-quality music is very cheap now, unlike the situation twenty years ago. The barriers to entry are low, and mostly artificial constructs put up by the big studios. I also hold talented musicians in high regard, and I have worked with enough of them to think that there are enough talented musicians in any major city to fill the worldwide void if A&M, Warner, Sony, and the other conglomerates were to disappear from the map tomorrow. Nobody would have to look very hard for music to listen to, download, and (sometimes) pay for. Would it pay the artists enough to quit their day job? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the mechanism. But these are people aren't making loads of money off their music now, either. They do it because they're musicians, and (in my experience) you can't keep them from creating music.

Not that I wish ill to the artists with contracts, but I do hope the industry changes radically from its current form.

Re:Timeline:

[Maxo-Texas]

There are tens of thousands of musicians talented enough to produce professional music.

Only the lock on distribution channels prevents them from becoming popular.

And that is what this is really all about.

Support alternate music by going to places like "Magnatune.com" where the music is worth what you decide to pay for it and the artists get 50% of the what you pay... not 10% (itune) or 0% (most music contracts actually leave many musicians deeper in debt after a successful album due to funny accounting practices.)

Re:Timeline:

[bit01]

em>The moment that happens is the moment they stop selling anything at all,

Correction: The moment that happens is the moment they stop making excessive profits while still selling virtually the same product much more efficiently and without excessive marketing.

Unfortunately, the same cant be said for music or movies - the cost of entry is a lot higher

Yep, incredibly inefficient industries. I wonder why?

Maybe because it's largely controlled by a distribution cartel raking off most of the potential profits?

---

Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as by too little signal.

Re:Timeline:

[voice_of_all_reason]

>>So the industry should just give up? The moment that happens is the moment they stop selling anything at all, and then what will people pirate?

Irrelevant. It is inevitable, Mister Anderson.

Dingdingding!

[Thud457]

That's what the media distribution companies are really afraid of -- some copyright infringement now is small potatoes. Hell, they chalk it up to the advertiszing budget.

They're really up a creek without a paddle once people realize they don't need them at all.

Re:Dingdingding!

[fwarren]

Yup

Follow the money

The whole outcry against file sharing comes down to control. Most money in music is made on the back catalog. He who owns the distribution channel owns the back catalog and makes the money.

When the next Beatles, or Elvis shows up on the scene, they want to see them signed with a major label, not issuing their CD's via bittorrent, other p2p and their website.

Just like the agents in the matrix, they control all the doors...and they want to keep it that way.

New York Times: Grokster File-Sharing Service Shut

[bartash]

Here is the Grokster story from the NYT.

In Other News..

[MightyMartian]

New York City - The Mafia has promised not to dip people in concrete and dump them into the Hudson River. In an agreement with FBI and Rudolf Giulani's ego, the Mafia has agreed that it will cease and desist this practice, regarded by some (particularly victims) as being somewhat barbaric, and usually quite illegal. "Da FBI came down on us and says 'Looks Fat Tony, we's getting tired of all da pollution. Peoples gotta drink dis water, ya know what I mean?'" said Fat Tony Lucchese.

Indirectly liable? WTF?

[nurb432]

Lets see, some of their users get involved with 'pirating' but its Grokster's fault and they get 'punished'?

So does that mean i can sue Ford because some moron hit me while driving a mercury?

Oh, and wasnt some of the 'offenders' using Grokster improperly using Windows? Then Microsoft is at fault too.

This is insane.

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[Spad]

Only if Ford marketed them as "Hit and run-mobiles"

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[neelm]

What about guns marketed to kill people (aka "home protection")?

I know it's a leap, but marketing method should not factor in to the tool or the use. If a TiVo w/DVD burner marketed "Copy HBO movies and burn them for friends!" would TiVo then be an illegal device?

You'll get my TiVo when you pry the remote from my cold dead hands...

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[Stonehand]

Regarding firearms marketing, that sort of suit has been tried before. It's not really a great idea to market small, inexpensive handguns as fingerprint-resistant, for instance; juries might readily consider that a direct appeal to the criminal market for obvious reasons.

With regards to TiVO, time-shifting and space-shifting that do NOT involve shifting to other people, or the bypassing of digital access protection methods, still tend to be safe. Showing a program to your friends in a non-commercial and private setting will be considered fair use. Don't bother claiming that everybody on millions-wide file sharing network is your friend, however; do that and you're doing a public performance, which is one knock against you in the 'is this fair use' question.

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[neelm]

It has also been tried to sue the gun makers for the actions of the gun user (which is the point the wikipedia guy below missed by just a bit).

You TiVo example breks down... you are showing the actions of the user, and not the marketing of TiVo. You're tie to fair use is also irrelevant. The people being held liable are not the people who commited the crime, it's the people who made the device that was used in the crime.

What we have here is, "Grokster said (or implied) we could do it!" and the Judge saying, "okay, then it's not your fault, you didn't know better."

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[shark72]

I guess you haven't been following the Grokster case too closely. Your conclusions are way off the beam.

This page will get you caught up. Here's the court opinion. If you read that and you're still not sure of the difference between Grokster and Ford, post here and perhaps somebody can explain it to you more carefully than I can.

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[nurb432]

Same concept. No explanation needed.

Manufacturers should *never* be held liable for what their customers do with their product.

I dont care how it was advertised. Its the *consumers* choice to use said product illegally.

To blame/penalize the company is wrong. Period.

Re:Indirectly liable? WTF?

[squiggleslash]

So soliciting crimes should be illegal for everyone except businesses, for example?

If you intentionally encourage illegal behaviour, than it's absolutely right you should be held accountable. Saying "It wasn't MY finger on the trigger, I just said "fire"" shouldn't be an opt-out for anyone, be they an enraged wife, or the marketing department of Google.

See the IP Institute Page for More

[jhsewell]

The University of Richmond's IP Institute web site has more information and links on this story.

http://ipinstitute.blogspot.com/

Analogy with guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessee, the guns themselves are just tools, they can be used properly or they can be used improperly. Without knowing the relative proportion of usage of guns in both cases I would state without proof that the latter isnt a miniscule minority.

I believe replacing "guns" with "file sharing apps" wouldnt make the statements above invalid.

So the way I see it, the only real difference is guns have a huge corrupt lobby group FOR it, while file sharing apps have a huge corrupt lobby group AGAINST it. Ethically/morally, I don't see a difference.

Re:Analogy with guns?

[enjahova]

Yeah there wouldn't be a difference if gun shops/manufacturers advertised that their tools made it easy to hunt "The Most Dangerous Game"

interesting president

[isbhod]

So does this mean i can sue the manufacturer of the shovel that was used to kill my brother? I mean the tool was never designed to be used for murder, and I know the crazy guy the killed my brother misused the tool, but hey the entertainment industry was able to sue the manufacturer of a tool that harmed them, even though it was by the misuse of the tool by their users. So why doesn't this M.O. work for me?

Re:interesting president

[Mordantos]

Heck- include the Entertainment Industry in your lawsuit.
I mean, how many times have they shown someone being hit with a shovel.
Obviously they enabled the murder...

"The Entertainment Industry, makers of "How To" videos for murders, today had to..."

Re:interesting president

[isbhod]

Brilliant! My lawyer, Steve Dallas, always says sue the people with money. Like the time he got punched by a down and out has-been actor for taking his picture. Did he sue the penniless actor? No, he went after the Camera Co. ;)

Get it while you can...

[Nethead]

No match for "GROKSTER4G.COM" You know they'll want this one if a few months ;)

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[Kjella]

Why would one PAY to share files?

1. People are at best ignorant, at worst stupid.
2. The service might actually provide some value-add. Like news-servers, they offer search, retention, stability and download bandwidth without upload (very nice if you're on a very lopsided connection).
3. No matter how you twist it, bulk data is very cheap compared to the IP embodied in those data. You might as well ask "Why would one PAY for CD-Rs to share files?"
4. People are already paying for it. Many people have broadband connections faster than they otherwise would have for the prupose of illegally downloading something off the net.
5. To legitimize themselves. I've heard several people who were using Napster who quit when they were convicted. Everything up to then was like "unclear" even though the users in question were blatantly violating copyright.

Those are just the ones I can think off of the top of my head. If you want it summed up on one line: It's better to pay a little than to pay a lot.

Kjella

shhh

[KodeJockey]

"I felt a great disturbance in the Grok, as if a million recording artists cried out in torment and were silenced at once..."

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[MiliusXP]

IRC is also used a lot

Grokster's business model

[tnk1]

Grokster's business model, if you can call it that, was basically to hang a big neon sign on themselves that said "Sue the shit out of me, I dare you, you pussies". Somehow this would have helped them succeed in whatever Bizzaro reality they lived in.

Oh sorry, I mean, they were trying to be the cutting edge in a new media uhh... reality where uhh... insert some crap here where they would be the white knights of the free music era.

Now they have joined Napster in the "we were once interesting, but now are shambling repurchased zombie brands controlled by the Dark Lords of the RIAA".

Maybe they'll have a merger and the world can brace for the biggest collective yawn the world has seen since the Dinosaurs accidentially did the same thing and all simultaneously died of boredom. Or something.

Gropster? Hmm.

Interesting "Restriction"

[Secret Agent Man]

"...participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."

What? You mean that they aren't allowed to steal copyrighted files?

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[lowry-kun]

Also new anonymous programs like Mute mute-net.sourceforge.net are emerging.

Regulation of file trading is still dangerous

[Spy der Mann]

... for freedom of speech.

Because, if ONLY "authentic licensed" works can be traded, what stops a government to decide if a particular file (i.e. controversial news of some chinese blogger text) is "illegal"?

Unregulated file sharing networks must keep existing. Let the RIAA sue users if they want, but DONT touch freedom of speech.

Re:Regulation of file trading is still dangerous

[Stonehand]

It's the content creator, or whomever else holds the rights. This usually isn't the government.

** If memory serves, there has been at least one case in which a local government group copyrighted a code of regulations and prevented the free redistribution thereof. This does strike me as extremely perverse, but more of an abuse by government workers than a flaw in the concept of copyrights, since it's far more of a problem to switch governments than it is to choose a different book to read or movie to watch.

Re:Regulation of file trading is still dangerous

[tepples]

It's the content creator, or whomever else holds the rights

"Content creator" means "happy god". The law uses the word "author".

This usually isn't the government.

The government is defined as the entity in direct control of the state, and the state is defined as the entity with the exclusive right to instigate lethal force. Unlike patent infringement, copyright infringement has criminal penalties, and it's possible for the FBI to press charges on its own even in the case of an orphaned work (that is, one whose copyright owner cannot be located after due diligence).

Re:OSS piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The position on information sharing can have different attitudes to classical copyright and copyleft copyright without beeing inconsistent.

Re:Writer sounds biased.

[arose]

Exactly, grokster was never popular. ;)

It's not theft, it's murder...Murder!!!

[Ryan C.]

Whenever replying to someone who uses "theft" when they mean "copyright infingement", just reply substituting the word "murder" since that makes about as much sense. Don't explain, wait for them to ask why you're using that term.

e.g.

Only a small percentage of Grokster's customer base were not murdering music files, that's why they got shut down. I agree that murder of artist's music should not be allowed.

Re:It's not theft, it's murder...Murder!!!

[/dev/trash]

Huh>?

Re:It's not theft, it's murder...Murder!!!

[Itanshi]

is the data on the disc worth more than the disc itself? when the copyright is infringed upon is that not subsequently worse than stealing a disc? seems in this case copyright infringment is a worse crime than theft of a disc. More people can infringe then steal here and both lead to the saem results, people with content without payment so they both affect sales to some degree. so i question your judgment :-P more so the stigma

Re:It's not theft, it's murder...Murder!!!

[Travelsonic]

[blockquote]...people with content without payment [/blockquote]

Isn't this a tad bit of a broad definition of stealing? Given the legal/free content out there, and the fact that you can legally get music CDs and other "usually pay for" content free from contests, promos, even from your friend giving it to you because he doesn't want/need it, or buying it from a used CD store.

Software doesn't steal, people do.

[abefij]

File sharing isn't a crime. Stealing is. This makes as much sense as suing crowbar manufacturers for home break-ins. Just be honorable and don't steal. Downloading copyrighted music is not some sort of protest, it is dishonesty pure and simple, with the added effect of causing rubbish like this to happen. The DMCA wouldn't exist if people had used common sense and a little restraint and not copied music that didn't belong to them. Now we have threats every other day regarding issues of fair use which were settled years ago, but now are considered gray areas because of the RIAA, DMCA, and broadcast flag proponents. We created an opening for them to change the law, and so they did, and are continuing to do. Grokster should have taken advantage of the precedent set by Gun makers and refused to give in. If people continue to lose their nerve, we will have fewer rights than we did before this whole mess.

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[patio11]

This makes as much sense as suing crowbar manufacturers for home break-ins

In this case, its more like suing a crowbar manufacturer who produced a product named BurglarBuddy, sent out advertising circulars saying "123 Maple Lane has excellent diamonds and fine silver visible from the window, guarded by a flimsy padlock... Buy Your BurglarBuddy Today!", and had your customer support actively support burglars ("No no, silly, you can't use BurglarBuddy if you haven't disabled the Canine Property Protection Device (CPPD) first. Try ending the CPPD process by applying JuicySteak2000. Then use your BurglarBuddy as described on our website and you'll be at that vine vase in ten minutes or less. Thank you for contacting BurglarBuddy!")

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[Travelsonic]

[blockquote]Just be honorable and don't steal. Downloading copyrighted music is not some sort of protest, it is dishonesty pure and simple[/blockquote]

1. The crime is copyright infrignement - illegal copying against the wishes of the holder without the misapropriation of anything in the possession of that person... but we know this will be argued so ignore please...

2. Downloading copyrighted works alone isn't dishonest, and this BS is getting on my nerves. (please read the resto f the post before responding, please!) Internet explorer, Firefox, Linux, Open source software use licensing that relies on copyrighted works - but downloading them is not immoral or illegal since permission was given..... there are also works that are protected by traditional copyright wrks with loose restrictions ALA Creative Commons that can be shared freely or within reason... do you know what that tells you/me/us? That the real dishonesty and/or lawbreaking is sharing copyrighted works wityhout permission. Jeesh, why is this point always ignored? "it doesn't belong to you" doesn't matter "it's copyrighred to blahblahblah" DOESN'T MATYTER "you didn't get permission to share that file!" THAT is what MATTERS!

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[abefij]

Downloading copyrighted works alone isn't dishonest, and this BS is getting on my nerves. That the real dishonesty and/or lawbreaking is sharing copyrighted works wityhout permission. That goes without saying. "Without permission" is implied, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Perhaps I should use "Does not", you might not understand "doesn't" since the "o" is implied. Please don't make the default assumption that everyone is stupid.

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[hawridger]

""People who are downloading the information are doing so because they don't think it is wrong because of fair use (ie. just like listening to music from someone elses stereo/radio).""

Dude, the unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works is not a fair use under section 107 of the copyright act, which defines fair uses, that's infringement. Listening to music from a radio falls within specific broadcast exceptions. You're talking about totally different things here with no frame of reference for either. Copyright is a total creature of statute and without the protections provided by it, you lose the artist's incentive to create works. You apparently would prefer this.

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[Travelsonic]

Like the AC said, there are people who do not already know this is implied and are unintentionally mislead to believe something that was not meant to be... in this case all copyrighted works VS copyrighted works being shared without permission.

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[hawridger]

By 'bucking the system to the max' is how laws get changed-- quicker than voting or any other milk-toast way that the government would have us beleive that laws are changed! In fact MOST of the time it is the ONLY way rules or laws get changed (ie. when they are laughted at, disrespected and ignored).

You really think this is the ONLY way laws get changed MOST of the time? Lobbying efforts of special interest groups are what change laws. Look at the AHRA, the NET Act, the DMCA. These laws didn't change the copyright laws because someone was laughing at it. These laws came to pass because groups like the RIAA and MPAA lobbied hard for their passage. Do you really think Congress will back down on this?

What you are saying is the same thing if I said that you would be in violation of the law because you brought your radio to the beach or party, so that everyone could hear/enjoy the tunes.

Copyright law provides a mechanism for people using radios in public that is nowhere near the same as duplicating copyrighted works. Under section 110(5) fo the Copyright Act, Congress specifically provides an exception for playing a radio that is a "homestyle receiving apparatus." Congress said that this kind of public use is NOT an infringement of copyright, which is clearly distinguishable from my point that "unauthorized duplication of copyrighted works" is an infringement.

This day and age people use the Internet to do that!

Again, it's not the same thing. You are talking about a one time broadcast signal that is not a duplication of the work. Duplication is where the infringement comes into play.

And yes frankly I WOULD like to see the current greedy mix of 'artists' be put out of business-- if they are on the side of the Riaa.

That would make room for the millions of other (probably better) artists to come along and be heard and enjoyed--- instead of having to make a living by putting kids in jail!!

I may be inclined to agree with you. However, I think legitimate market forces (e.g., demand for an artist's work) should be the driving force behind this, rather than refusing to protect an artist's copyright in a particular work. These rights have always been protected and just because it's easier to duplicate/infringe due to the Internet doesn't mean an artist's rights should be lessened. Apparently, what you want is either for p2p filesharing (or other forms of duplication) to be declared a fair use or to do away with copyright protection altogether. Your suggestion of achieving this by 'bucking the system' is entirely without merit. P2P filesharing of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder is and always has been a direct infringement. Suggesting that copyright protection will be done away with entirely is, even more so, a meritless notion.

The best hope from the infringers' perspective is that the Supreme Court or Congress will address the P2P technology from the perspective of the Betamax Case, which the Court in the recent Grokster decision specifically refused to address, and find that P2P software and networks are presumptively capable of substantial noninfringing uses, like the Betamax recorder. If this happens, we'll continue to see P2P rising - although it will come with ample warnings and perhaps measures to prevent copyright infringement of its users. The alternative decision from either Congress or the courts, which is actively being lobbied by groups like the RIAA and MPAA, is that P2P networks will be found incapable of substantial noninfringing uses, which spells death for the P2P developers and users and a major victory for the RIAA. If you really want to change a law, start a lobbying effort.

Re:Software doesn't steal, people do.

[hawridger]

You saying my beach radio comparison to InterNet sharing is not the same-- is just not true. I never saw where there is a law (or prosection) of anyone at the beach, listening to, recording, or making notes on songs they hear from other peoples boom boxes.

The key distinction between the two is the actual "copying." That's what copyright law aims to prevent. The "law" does prohibit recording from a radio broadcast. The reason that doesn't make the headlines is that it's innefficient, unlike online filesharing.

And please don't say it's not the same as me allowing someone to download my songs-- because accually, it is MORE of a violation for radio stations to ALLOW people to COPY all the songs that they play out over the airwaves for EVERYONE to copy!!

I'm not sure what you are comparing here, but if it is p2p networks and radio stations let me say this: It is not radio stations that "allow" the violation to occur. Broadcasting is a permissible act for copyrighted content; however, broadcasters must pay for that use. If someone copies a song while it is being broadcasted, then it is that person who is infringing on the copyright, not the broadcaster (although this may even constitute a fair use under the Sony Betamax case). I think you want to say that is the same scenario as Grokster; however, in Grokster, there was a substantial amount of proof that pointed to Grokster as an inducer of the infringement, which is what subjected Grokster and Streamcast to potential liability for indirect copyright infringement.

Where the comparison may be valid is in the case of Limewire, for example. Limewire posts a substantial amount of warnings stating that users shouldn't use their software to infringe copyrights. It's even in their EULA that you agree to. I think this is where your VCR comparison fits well too. As I mentioned in my last post, this may very well be the next round in the courts if Congress doesn't respond first. Courts could (and probably should) find that a P2P developer who does not meet the standards for contributory or vicarious liability (ala Grokster) cannot have liability imputed to them because their product (the P2P program) is "capable" of commercially significant noninfringing uses (even though the current uses of that product are overwhelmingly infringing on copyrights).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an RIAA advocate; however, I think that copyright law needs to continue to protect an artist's creation. There is a balance that I think has yet to be achieved in the online world with copyright protections. I think that the new Napster and iTunes is a step in the right direction. However, I (probably like you) get really pissed off when I can't do something simple like make an MP3 album from songs I purchase on iTunes because of digital rights management measures. I (again, probably like you) think that the content holders need to embrace technology rather than sue everyone they can.

My point is that the law is what it is, not what you or me feel it should be. Agree or disagree with the RIAA, unauthorized duplication of copyrighted work is still a violation of copyright law. I don't think the Grokster case made any drastic departure from sound copyright law. The Grokster case was perfectly in line with fundamental precedent in copyright law. I think your enemy is more the content providers than the law itself. The precedent that Grokster was based on has been around for 40 or so years. I think that the RIAA has maybe screwed itself in their enforcement tactics, which has bred indignation in consumers who obtain their content in an infringing manner. The market will sort this out more so than the law, but it's still infringment. Copyright law still has to protect artists, otherwise, their is no utilitarian purpose in copyright itself. While that may be ideal to some, if more artists were starving there would be less art.

...what aboot...

[Z34107]

What about bands that put their music on P2P networks in order to get noticed? Or bands that are aware that their music is being shared and don't mind?

What about them? Believe it or not, 99% of the sharing on P2P networks is illegal, copyright-infringing content. In fact, that was the networks' primary purpose - the illegal sharing of copyrighted material. Also, that's why they lost their court case - even though the service has other uses, it is overwhelmingly used for piracy.

Compare this to a bong and to a VCR. A VCR has its legal uses - taping a show for personal viewing later harms no-one, and is in fact fair use. Though it can be used to pirate videos, that's not its usual use.

Now, compare it to a bong. Sure,a bong has other uses such as:

• Back scratcher
• Spoon
• Halloween costume
• Home decoration
• Blunt object
• Sharp object
• Ninja weapon
• Clothing acessory
• ad nauseum

a bong's primary purpose is to get high. Hence, where getting high is illegal, bongs are generally illegal. (In fact, they're called "drug paraphenalia." Now, not to open a pandora's box of hippies and "legalize pot" posts, but back to my point:

Grokster was shut down for piracy. The network was created solely to host illegal content, and the vast majority of its traffic was little more than piracy. The few bands that actually used its service can always create/host their own torrents - much easier and better, IMO.

So, don't debate the effects of the "loss" of this "service" to a handful of bands - start debating something more meaningful, like the proper extent of Intellectual Property rights or the fairness of the recording industry's oligopoly.

<GetsOffSoapBox/>

No kidding! e.g.

[StandardDeviant]

I've seen (Score: 5, Troll) several times. (How: post gets moderated once as "Troll", lowering the score and modifying the text segment, then several people say "Hey, that's not right!" and decide to use "Underrated", which raises the numeric score but leaves the text segment unaffected.)

Actually come to think of it, if I recall correctly, one of them was CmdrTaco's wife (... Kathleen?) responding to his will-you-marry-me post in the affirmative. The image of a troll wedding makes me laugh every time I think about it. I mean, obviously, under a bridge, but...

The squeaky wheel...or perhaps the deepest pockets

[Anung_Un_Rama]

...is the one that gets the attention. This goes against the commonly held view by the courts that the creator should not be held liable for the deliberate misuse of their product. That is the reason why every automobile maker, gun manufacturer, and alcohol producer is not completely bankrupt. I cannot buy the argument of intent: Samuel Colt knew when he designed the revolver what it would be used for. And advertising? Please. Look at any beer commercial and tell me the advertising has a completely benign intent. The entertainment industry has made it their plight and they are not going to stop until every "sharing" program is history. I believe it was the OJ Simpson trial that taught me justice is not blind...if you have the financial backing to unbalance the scales.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[Rei]

Is mute still alive? Last time I tried to build it (some point this summer), it was a complete failure, and would have taken me days to debug (I actually started, and stopped after seing how big of a job it was going to be). The mute message board gets almost no traffic. No release since april.

Any other programs like Mute out there that people here have tried out?

Insightful? No. FUD!

[kiddailey]

Why the hell was that moderated +5 insightful? It's so full of holes it isn't even funny.

"I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally. ... I'm not saying that it's not possible to use P2P networks for legit reasons, and I'm not saying that on occasion people do obtain legal materials from them."

I run a community gaming site that catalogs maps for First Person Shooters. With over 10 GB of maps and growing, P2P combined with magnet links is an incredibly valuable method of file distribution that doesn't require loads of cash, server cycles and bandwidth to operate and maintain. It boasts hundreds of downloads a week. I'd hardly call that "occassional."

Really though, it's not a good way for an author to market something (no tracking, no content control, no targeting, etc), and it's not a convenient way for the consumer to retrieve something (file descriptors can be poor, you get queued up, you have to share back to get good rates with some services, etc).

No tracking, content control and targeting? Not convenient? You have to share back to get good rates? File descriptions are poor?

Any qualified web admin can implement tracking on the web site that's listing the download whether it be magnet, torrent or otherwise. As well, some P2P apps provide limited download tracking. BitTorrent on it's own does not provide tracking either (you'd have to analyze torrent downloads in the server log files), so your point is kind of moot.

Not convenient? Ever heard of a magnet link? You put a link on your page. Clicking it launches the user's P2P app and starts the download. How is that not convenient? On a comparison to BitTorrent I'd say it's just as, if not more convenient (I don't have to delete old torrent files with magnet links). Compared to HTTP downloads, all P2P tech is obviously less convenient since you have to download P2P software.

Share back to get good rates? Funny... that's how BitTorrent works and a good number of other P2P networks don't.

The one giant exception here is Bittorrent ... encourages the distribution of *legitamate* content because it a) allows the author to create and maintain a torrent that isn't connected to some vast network of crap, b) torrents can be "distributed" via websites, which is where you want your consumer to be, c) the consumer gets faster downloads, d) the author pays for less bandwidth.

As I mentioned, magnet links eliminate the problems of the "vast network of crap." They contain a file hash similar to a torrent file and can contain one or more source seed server addresses. They can be put on a website just like any URL with the added benefit that they don't require you to have a one-to-one relationship of all your files to torrent files.

The fact that you even need to maintain and distribute torrent files is a pain. If I've got 4,000 files I want to distribute via BitTorrent, it requires that I maintain 4,000 torrent files. Granted, a software author may not have 4,000 files, but the requirement to maintain them still exists regardless.

The consumer only gets faster downloads with BitTorrent if they are able to get it configured and playing nice with their particular setup. Most, but not all, "average Joes" I've tried to sell BitTorrent on always complain about painful tweaking and crappy speeds because of it. This is primarily because BitTorrent requires you to upload back to the swarm, while others do not.

And a BitTorrent author only pays less for bandwidth if there are a large number of continually connected seeds and peers. If not, the

Justifiable homicide

[tepples]

What about guns marketed to kill people (aka "home protection")?

Two words: justifiable homicide.

Re:Justifiable homicide

[Buran]

Self defense is legal. So is defense of your property. If someone breaks into your house, they are trespassing and you are within your rights to walk into the room, turn on the lights, and say "You must leave now". If they refuse and attempt to harm you, you are allowed to retaliate in self-defense. A jury, if the criminal sues or dies or whatever, will look at the situation and say "well, he deserved what he got, it was self defense, case dismissed".

Home protection is a very valid use and is a reason why I am considering owning a gun in the future. Just like any other tool, guns have legitimate uses.

What "inducement" means

[tepples]

This makes as much sense as suing crowbar manufacturers for home break-ins.

No, it makes as much sense as suing crowbar manufacturers who promote their products as useful for breaking and entering.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[Matt_R]

Why would one PAY to share files?

Because they're stupid.

My boss recently PAID for eMule, which he installed on his daughter's computer. 5 days later they get a bill from Bigpond for $600AUD in excess data usage. Bigpond is one of the few ISPs left in Australia that count uploads are part of your data quota, and she left eMule running.

I find it quite funny that he ended up paying more for the illegally downloaded music than it would have cost to buy the CDs.

Re:Insightful? No. FUD!

[slackmaster2000]

Many of your arguments in favor of "traditional" P2P networks are very much the same as my arguments in favor Bittorrent. Your use of magnetic links to maintain your system is exactly why "bittorrent type" sharing is so beneficial.

My arguments against traditional P2P lie almost soley in their typical or originally intended use, which is to connect to the network with a client and start searching. This is not particularly convenient to the end user searching for legitimate content. It's much simpler for them to connect to your website and use your magnetic links, which is analogous to connecting to your website and clicking on torrent links.

If I had been more educated about magnetic links, I would have lumped them in with my arguments in favor of that type of file sharing.

The OCILLA takedown process

[tepples]

could you give an example?

First off, assume that .torrent files are uploaded to an account at an online service provider such as a web host or a dedicated torrent host (e.g. newnova). Legal action would then proceed against the account holder, starting with a John Doe suit to discover the uploader's identity through a court order against the provider. Some countries have enacted legislation along the lines of the OCILLA to encourage providers to help out.

Re:The OCILLA takedown process

[MonkeyOfRage]

Thank you, but I'm not sure how that's more accountable than other clients. As I pointed out in another post, I have the IP, host mask, and often even the country of origin for every file source right displayed in my client - can't this be used in the same way? Wouldn't OCILLA likewise apply to any ISP, not just web hosting providers? In fact, isn't this an even better position for IP holders, since the entire "swarm" is identifiable this way?

Re:The OCILLA takedown process

[tepples]

I have the IP, host mask, and often even the country of origin for every file source right displayed in my client - can't this be used in the same way?

For one thing, the tracker gives the IP address for everyone on a torrent, not just those connected to a given host. For another, a .torrent file is one step closer to the ultimate origin of the file, allowing the studio to find people responsible for 70,000 downloads instead of 7, giving million-dollar lawsuits a bit more justification.

Wouldn't OCILLA likewise apply to any ISP, not just web hosting providers?

Only if the .torrent file or the tracker resides on a server controlled by the ISP, such as an ISP's personal home page server. According to the Wikipedia article, a key OCILLA decision in December 2003 stated in part that "any notice to an ISP concerning its activity as a mere conduit does not satisfy the condition of 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) and is therefore ineffective".

In fact, isn't this an even better position for IP holders, since the entire "swarm" is identifiable this way?

"IP holders" is ambiguous in this context. Do you mean copyright owners ("intellectual property holders"), or do you mean DHCP tenants ("internet protocol address holders")?

probably close to a tie...

[zogger]

...percentage wise. Add up speeding, illegal lane change, driving to endanger, following too closely, failure to use turn signals, DUI and etc,etc, picky point and etc, the traffic on most interstates I have seen is well over 90% illegal. It's just more accepted and tolerated and indulged in by society at this point.

I think perhaps a better analogy might be booze prohibition way back when. Illegal as all get out, indulged by millions regularly, with highly selective harsh law enforcement.

Either way though your point is still valid. The only even half way answer I have for "the file sharing problem" is personal selective shunning. Onerous copyright compounded by gouging level prices, don't share it, don't patronize those concerns with your business either. Just say no, look for something else.

I hit a somewhat middle ground, against the ridiculous prices and vendor lockins with the **AAs products, so I only indulge with used or severely marked down pre recorded media, and those at a very low level. I have never downloaded one single thing that wasn't legal to do so, but I understand people's attitudes about it completely. You just lose all respect for a business that is so overwhelmingly run by and for crooks. There are exceptions of course, but not many.

Re:probably close to a tie...

[zogger]

Why? A common slang vernacular from where I grew up. This is a casual forum post. No, it doesn't bother me nor does it matter. Language evolves, we don't use "forsooth and alack" much in English now do we? My writing style is mine, good, bad, ugly, the "whole ball of wax". See, there's another one, an idiom. Perhaps "thou" might "lighten up, dude".

Re:OSS piracy

[ClamIAm]

Open Source/Free Software creators give away more rights than they have to with respect to copyright law. The media cartels actively lobby and litigate for more rights than are necessary with respect to copyright law. There's a difference.

don't checkout upfront

[zogger]

Don't use the regular lanes, go back to sporting goods or garden or even jewelry at wallyworld. You can checkout there with hardly ever a wait. Same thing at kmart or home depot and some others, just don't use the normal checkout areas if there is a huge line.

Couple of differences

[iamacat]

First, copying is done by other people - it doesn't make sense to consider weather it's "voluntary" for somebody not involved. Second, file sharerers don't spread lies. I am a Mac user, and there are no services for me to legally download movies longer than 2 minutes.

Re:Couple of differences

[ScentCone]

it doesn't make sense to consider weather it's "voluntary" for somebody not involved

If you're beat up and robbed on the street, you're involved, and it's probably not voluntary. When you're not at home, but someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff, you're not there, and it's not voluntary on your part - but I'd scarcely call that "uninvolved."

If you put proprietary, private property in the hands of someone who agrees that it's not to be copied or shared during review, and that person takes that commercial data and spreads it around (contrary to the other party's express recognition that it's private property) to a few thousand anonymous "friends"... that's very much between you and the person with whom you made the agreement. You didn't volunteer your property to be spread around like that - rather, you entered into an agreement wherein the other person says they know they're holding your private property, and that copying and disemminating it will be damaging to your business... and they do it anyway. Your private property loses its value because, involuntarily, the control you have over your property has been destroyed by someone else's deceit.

Second, file sharerers don't spread lies

What? File sharers are users of file sharing software. There are millions of them. You can't make any sweeping comment about their morality as a group. Some of them may "spread lies" and some of them may pirate copyrighted material. Just like others do not.

I am a Mac user, and there are no services for me to legally download movies longer than 2 minutes.

So? Presuming that's even true, I'd say that using a computer that reflects only a small minority of those out there probably leaves you short in a lot of areas. Some web sites surely don't work for you, some games won't run on your machine, etc. That doesn't make it OK to pirate copyrighted material. There are probably country roads that your passenger car can't handle, either. Or some kinds of extreme weather for which you don't have the right gear. There are probably satellite transmissions that you have no way to receive, either. If you find service availability to be a problem for your Mac, set up a cheap Windows box.

Re:Couple of differences

[iamacat]

When you're not at home, but someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff
I'd say that using a computer that reflects only a small minority of those out there
If you find service availability to be a problem for your Mac, set up a cheap Windows box.

Actually what's happening is you sell a house to Alice and she makes a lousy copy of one room for Bob using her own raw materials. Also it's likely that either Bob can not afford your house anyway or have never heard about it before and might purchase the complete building after sampling a couple of lousy room replicas. Finally, you won't even sell stuff to Bob because he is a minority. As a solution, you are asking him to take a shower in the prison and drop the soap.

betamax

[enjahova]

Id like to echo your sentiment.

Furthermore, I would have expected something about the betamax decision by the parent. Your points are why I think the Grokster decision did not overturn the important parts of the 1984 betamax decision. The SCOTUS was very careful not to outlaw the technology behind grokster, but (what amounts to) malicious intent by the company.

Re:Insightful? No. FUD!

[kiddailey]

No, a magnet link doesn't point to anything.

Magnet links are "an open URI-scheme and supporting practices/code for enabling seamless integration between websites and locally-running utilities, such as file-management tools." They are a URN rather than a URL in that it specifies what to search for rather than where to download from. See http://magnet-uri.sourceforge.net/ for more information and the spec.

A magnet link will never point to a torrent file, but it could specify a file hash for a torrent file that can be searched against.

This is a magnet link

It specifies what to search for. The href portion is "magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:YNCKHTQCWBTRNJIV4WNAE52SJUQCZ O5C". When clicked it will cause your P2P client to launch (if installed) and search for files whos SHA1 hash match the one provided.

This is a link to a torrent

It specifies a location to download the torrent from. The href portion is "http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/torrents/stentz-binar y-x86_64.torrent". When clicked it will either download the torrent file via http or launch your torrent client and connect to the tracker server.
 

But how....?

[Khyber]

...will they stop PJ from kicking the **AA's ass at every corner? It's like every 28 days she gets a new surge of energy and all the ball-less guys at the **AA's suddenly cringe and run for cover!!!!

Some bands...

[Auraiken]

Yeah but, some bands i've downloaded can only be accessible via file sharing program. Like say they're in a whole different country. Take indie start-up bands for one. No label or distribution. 0.o;

Good

[johansalk]

For a moment I thought it was saying Groklaw. I'm glad Groklaw isn't shutting down.

Grokster != Highway

[mwmcmahon]

The interstate is more like the Internet. Grokster is more like a trucking company that advertises "We're the cheapest way to ship your illegal narcotics!"

While FedEx and UPS may unkowingly ship illegal drugs to customers, they certainly don't encourage this sort of thing. If Grokster hadn't encouraged their customers to "share", we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Next to close, NAPSTER?

[Basehart]

A recent interview with the BBC has Napster's CEO Duea quoted as saying "The dream is that Napster would work on any PC, any player in any territory and work seamlessly,"

Some dream! Let's face it, it's a great dream if you have a PC, but it still doesn't work on a Mac.

Here's what you get if you want to check out Napster from a Mac:

"We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.


Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000, Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time."

at this time meaning since NAPSTER was "reborn" as a legitimate company. So I guess Duea's dream is alive for PC users but dead for all those looser Mac users. What gives NAPSTER? Sounds like you're just a Windows pimp whoring WMA!

What about my super cool iPod. Do your NAPSTER format files, oops sorry, Microsoft format files work on it?

"14. Does Napster work with iPod?

Apple has chosen to keep both the iPod and iTunes closed off from Napster and every other digital music service. Napster's philosophy is different. A Napster Membership gives you more ways to discover and enjoy music on more players. Click here for more information."

How about:

"15. Does Napster work on a Mac?

Napster and Microsoft has chosen to keep both Napster, DRM Enhanced WMA files and over 300 other music stores closed off from the Mac."

File Swapping is Ethical and Moral

[Shlomi Fish]

My essay, "The Case for File Swapping" explains why file swapping is ethical and moral and why it should be legal. It touches on many points of the subject and is very comprehensive. The page links to other discussions and resources on the topic.

Dude, you totally violated their copyright

[Rogerborg]

FIGHT THE POWER!

whack-a-mole

[laurieknight]

When in the name of all thats holy are these pricks going to stop playing whack-a-mole? What is this supposed to achieve? Even if they can shutdown an odd software company, how does that stop users already running the network? Fuckwits!

Library analogy doesn't work

[ScentCone]

If all the media they sold was put in libraries, people would be getting just as much media as they do with P2P, for exactly the same price.

Except that you're wrong. Libraries are typically run by local/county/state governments and either purchase, or have donated to them by people who did purchase, the material that they loan out. If I purchase a copy of a Harry Potter book and donate it to a library, a thousand people cannot simultaneously be reading Rowling's work. If the library wants to be able to loan it out to 1000 people, they'll need a 1000 copies of the media on the shelf. Likewise with books on tape, etc. The author of the book is still compensated for the library's ownership of the book, and it's not being spread around to multiple people at a time. Yes, someone could stand there and photocopy the entire book - but that's illegal, and the libraries watch for that degree of infringement. If you take the book home and do it, and start passing around copies, you're infringing just like any other pirate - but even dumber, given the material costs.

They sell *so many* CDs and DVDs that there literally isn't a market for them anymore.

Then, why do they continue to sell more? And, if there's no demand for the artists' work, then surely there's no one out ripping it off, either, right? Except people do. Thousands and thousands of copies every hour for the popular stuff. That's not the same as "no market." No, that's "people ignoring one half of the buyer/seller transaction, and just taking what they want because they've found a way to avoid paying for it." If those people actually respect the artist enough to enjoy their music and call themselves fans, why are they spitting on the artist when it comes to the relationship that the artist has asked the fan to respect?

If it's widely acceptable to copy most anything on xerox machines for personal use, how is it horrificly wrong to copy music to a few other people in the world for their personal use?

Because then it's not for personal use. It's for someone else's use. Once I'm done with a good book, I routinely give it or loan it to a friend. I do the same with movies and music. Especially with movies, it's very rare that I'll ever want to actually watch something more than once. With music, I can get tired of it, or not. But I don't photocopy whole novels for friends, and I don't burn CDs or fileshare digital media because it's cheap to just buy it if I think it's actually worth owning. Someone who just has to have a copy of an artist's work, and can't find the $9.95 it costs to actually get it the way the artist they say they like has asked them to obviously doesn't have the cash on hand to have a lot of the things they'd like to have. But unlike a nicer car or a bigger house, they can rip off the people they want to entertain them with relatively little risk of consequence. But then, most people have almost no capacity for embarassment, so that's not surprising, I guess.

Copiers are, on a per copy basis, probably used MORE than computers for copyright infringement

I'll be very curious about the source of your statistics. How much time do you think your average 20-year-old sophomore in college spends actually photocopying lengthy documents when he can just store the PDF or other media during the course of research? Now, how often does that same person "share" digital entertainment, since he spent all of his ready cash on beer, instead? I would suggest that the impact of his daily activities involves far more digital infringement than old-school analog.

Re:OSS piracy

[Overly Critical Guy]

Yeah, and we call those "different attitudes" for different situations moral relativism, a.k.a. a double-standard. Complain about "stolen GPL code," but claim "piracy isn't theft!" Gotta love it.

Slightly different comparison

[nurb432]

Using your analogy:

Telling a person to "go kill your wife" is far different then giving them a gun "this could kill your wife".

I dont think grokster ordered anyone to commit an illegal act. If that is the case and they did, then id retract my opinion on the case.

Re:Besides Bittorrent and Usenet....

[lowry-kun]

I installed it under XP to see what it was all about. I don't believe that it has a significant number of users to get any reasonable download speeds. But it installed and ran on XP without an issue.