Reading the postings about this yesterday really
upset me. It seems that anyone that is supportive of the plaintif in this case is flamed and is not given a chance to express their opinion. This forum is not presenting or allowing a healthy discussion of the topic.
Personally I believe that the courts have gone way overboard in supporting anyone who can spell intellectual property". In this particular case, however, I can see the plaintif's point and generally agree with the outcome. Either we have copyright laws or we don't. I can't see how the outcome could have been any different.
My understanding of the current MP3 case is that mp3.com is storing copies of CDs (in mp3 format) in central repository for listening anywhere on the internet after the customer has proven that he/she owns the same CD. So mp3.com had to copy copyrighted material in order to do this. End of story. They violated copyright laws by doing this.
Contrast this with the DECSS situation or the:Cue:Cat situation. In both cases, someone has simply reverse engineered the transmission medium/format and developed code to use the devices in ways other than what their developers originally expected. In and of itself this does not violate copyright law, nor does it necessarily encourage people to do so. (The:Cue:Cat situation seems like a real fishing expedition).
In my opinion, the organizations trying to put a stop to healthy re-adaption of their technologies, as in the DECSS or:Cue:Cat cases, are true villains. Their harassment and bullying tactics need to nipped in the bud... and quickly.
But knee-jerk flaming of anyone who doesn't support the total elimination of copyright protection doesn't help things. The general public won't be able to distinguish between the mp3.com case and the DECSS/:Cue:Cat situation. All they see is that the open-source community can't have (won't allow) an open discourse about the new legal situations that are arising. We're being pigeon-holed and dismissed as a bunch of anarchists because of this.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I believe that the courts have gone way overboard in supporting anyone who can spell intellectual property". In this particular case, however, I can see the plaintif's point and generally agree with the outcome. Either we have copyright laws or we don't. I can't see how the outcome could have been any different.
My understanding of the current MP3 case is that mp3.com is storing copies of CDs (in mp3 format) in central repository for listening anywhere on the internet after the customer has proven that he/she owns the same CD. So mp3.com had to copy copyrighted material in order to do this. End of story. They violated copyright laws by doing this.
Contrast this with the DECSS situation or the :Cue:Cat situation. In both cases, someone has simply reverse engineered the transmission medium/format and developed code to use the devices in ways other than what their developers originally expected. In and of itself this does not violate copyright law, nor does it necessarily encourage people to do so. (The :Cue:Cat situation seems like a real fishing expedition).
In my opinion, the organizations trying to put a stop to healthy re-adaption of their technologies, as in the DECSS or :Cue:Cat cases, are true villains. Their harassment and bullying tactics need to nipped in the bud ... and quickly.
But knee-jerk flaming of anyone who doesn't support the total elimination of copyright protection doesn't help things. The general public won't be able to distinguish between the mp3.com case and the DECSS/:Cue:Cat situation. All they see is that the open-source community can't have (won't allow) an open discourse about the new legal situations that are arising. We're being pigeon-holed and dismissed as a bunch of anarchists because of this.