Grokster Launches Fear Campaign

An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is reporting on Grokster's new scare tactic. Suddenly it's become taboo to head over to Grokster.com. In a transparent attempt to scare potential P2P users, Grokster.com has reinforced its anti-P2P sentiment. The visitor's IP address is clearly displayed in large font on the Grokser's homepage while indicating the address was logged."

Comments

There's only one thing to do then . . .

[Cyberllama]

Obviously we have to slashdot it. Why is there no link in the story?

Here: for those too lazy to type it out

Grokster.com

Re:All youre IP are logged by us

[Aranth Brainfire]

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html

U.S. 297,835,838
World 6,489,060,591

297,835,838 / 6,489,060,591 = 0.04

(ps, whoa, a "no karma bonus" button...)

shaking in my boots

[aendeuryu]

<script language="JavaScript">
VIH_BackColor = "palegreen";
VIH_ForeColor = "navy";
VIH_FontPix = "16";
VIH_DisplayFormat = "You are visiting from:<br>IP Address: %%IP%%<br>Host: %%HOST%%";
</script>
<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.hashemian.com/js/visitorIPHOST.js. php"></script>

Yeah, I know, this is client side and the page does it server-side, but do you really think anybody idiotic enough to be scared by this will know the difference? It's not like I'm able to do anything illegal through grokster.com at this point ANYWAY.

Re:The Warning Is Misleading

[Scarletdown]

Are there even authorized peer-to-peer services where I can copy copyrighted motion picture and music files? I thought not.

If I was musically talented, and decided to write and record a song, that song automatically becomes copyrighted as soon as it's created. The way the warning on Grokster is worded, it sounds like it would be illegal for me to then distribute my own works on a P2P service like Gnutella, since those works are copyrighted. That was the point I was trying to get across in my original post about the warning being misleading.

If the owner of a copyrighted work authorizes his or her creations to be distributed via P2P, then that makes whatever P2P sevice it is distributed on authorized for those copyrighted works. Just because someone releases their work via P2P does not mean those works are no longer copyrighted.

Re:any connectino between grokster and groklaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster

Mashboxx

[User 956]

Am I the only one who thinks the RIAA/MPAA "wrote" that message?

Grokster sold out all their assets to Mashboxx (including their domain).

Mashboxx itself is a sham RIAA front company that pitches itself as "the world's first P2P application with content authorized by major record labels". Which is a total load, considering they don't even have a client available to the public.

So, in short, this is all nothing but a marketing ploy driven by smoke, mirrors, and fear. What else were you expecting from the RIAA?

Re:Won't you be my neighbor

[qubezz]

Why only just look at the cache, when you can let Google be your proxy?
http://www.google.com/translate?langpair=en|en&u =www.grokster.com

(no link because slashcode can't deal with the pipe in the URL....)

Re:Umm which computer

[rgoldste]

Actually, the real reason you sue the doctor, hospital, and nurse simultaneously is as follows.

Suppose I go in for an operation, and it goes wrong. I don't know who or why, but somebody screwed up. I decide to just sue the surgeon. We litigate, he wins. Then I find out it was the nurse's fault for not doing something she should've done. In federal courts (and I think most state courts), I can't then sue the nurse for the botched operation. When I sue somebody, I have to make all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurence (here, the operation) or lose them forever. This is actually an efficiency rule, since it prevents one jerk from bringing up dozens of successive lawsuits until he wins. The courts want to hear a dispute and resolve it with finality.

In fact, this rule hurts plaintiffs, since all of a sudden they have to face down a literal army of defense lawyers; they can't divide and conquer.

The "loser pays" system certainly has its merits, but consider one of its main drawbacks: legal stagnation. When a plaintiff might get stuck with the total bill, he's more likely to not sue. Since courts can only decide the cases before them, the law develops and adapts as a result of actual cases; fewer cases means it won't keep up with the times as quickly. Many people here already think the law is too slow to adapt (especially in the tech sector), so a loser pays system would only make things worse in this regard.

Judges are indeed not thrilled with frivolous lawsuits. For one, each new suit means more work for them, and they're not paid by the case. Two, frivolous cases often don't present real and interesting legal issues; presiding over the frivolous case eats into the time a judge can spend on more interesting cases. There's a federal rule against filing frivolous or harassing lawsuits, and courts have great leeway to come up with creative punishments for violating that rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11).

IANAL(yet)

Re: Won't you be my neighbour

[cayenne8]

"Why do people in the US persist in spelling the word "neighbour" as neighbor?"

For the same reason that we don't spell color as colour, and labor as labour....

It looks funny the other way...