For translators the site is inline editable. Just doubleclick on a textfield or alt+click on a string to edit it inline.
I can't believe I didn't think of that before you just mentioned it...did you roll your own, or find a decent example? I did that once before for some old pages that had a lot of updates, but without the benefit of AJAX-type technology.
AJAX isn't a language, it's a concept. Search for XMLHTTP on Google, instead of AJAX on CPAN.
I've been XMLHTTP-ing a bunch of old ASP code (and made a cool cross-browser chat page), and thinking about moving a bunch of stuff to PHP. Now I might chuck it all and see if I can use Ruby instead. Scary simple.
since you were the first one to chime in with something along the lines of "TV != entitlement", I'll respond here.
No, *nobody* is entitled to have television, but it seems a bit unfair (to me) to make a change that mostly affects people who are less able to adapt to said change.
You aren't entitled to a boat, but if you had managed to get one with an old carbeurated two-stroke that worked just fine, and the DOT told you you couldn't take it on the lake any more unless you got a fuel-injected outboard (because it used too much gas), you'd probably be annoyed.
"...If your TV is so old it can't take a cable input, it probably isn't working so well anyway. It might be time to replace it with the $40 TV from Walmart."
...which will cease to function (just like the old one) as soon as the switch happens.
If your TV is so old it can't take a cable input, you probably don't have the dough to spend on a new TV, let alone a converter box.
"...You can buy a digital antenna, and be just fine. Of course, you'll get the improved reception and clarity as a bonus, but if you're using a normal antenna right now... chances are you're not really too concerned about that, are you?"
No, you can't buy a "digital antenna" and be just fine (same as you can't buy a "digital antenna" for your old analog cell-phone and connect to digital towers with it). You can buy a set-top box to convert the digital signal to analog, but if you're getting your daily dose of TV via rabbit-ears connected directly to your analog television, you quite possibly don't have the money to spend on it.
Not that that hasn't been mentioned about a thousand times already.
Let's take another scenario: Analog FM and AM radio have just been declared deceased by the FCC. Broadcasters will be required to transmit all audio signals digitally. You can buy a converter for each of your radios for only $30.00. Of course, that includes your walkman, the radio in your car, the expensive Onkyo/Pioneer/Sony home theater reciever in the living room, your shower radio...
This is a fairly serious issue not because it's not technically feasible, but because of the social aspect.
Typically, the FCC makes changes like this with the impact on consumers in mind. Typically, manufacturers like to make compatible technology attractive and affordable. What's evident in this case is that with this many people getting ready to have their sets go dark, something has gone awry.
Seriously, 33 million people is not a trivial number. If the industry thinks it *is* trivial, I suggest they look into how much it would cost to purchase set-top converter boxes for those televisions. Even at $50.00 a pop, that's a healthy sum.
Ah, but you're forgetting the other of our two preconditions: distribution. Once company SlimeCo has demonstrated criminal intent, they are no longer able to distribute the product-- and that would include transfer of ownership to CleverCo. Participating in such a transfer attempt would be remarkably foolish for CleverCo, since they would risk being tainted with unclean hands, thereby knocking them out of the market and into a nasty liability. SlimeCo's product is an albatross around their neck.
You're making good points. This raises a question, though. Suppose (ala RedHat) SlimeCo has a product that is functionally identical to their P2P app, but is open sourced and freely available. If it was distributed under a liberal license (say, a BSD-style license), would other developers be liable for contributory infringement-type suits if they develop a derivative that's 99% slimeco code?
Sure, re-developing might not be difficult, but in the meantime, would they be in any trouble? Are their hands automatically unclean because they worked to develop the code itself with slimeco? If so, does that mean that any work they did has to be abandoned and begun anew?
I don't think that DRM needs to be nasty, necessarily. It would be possible to develop code that does the trick and is still open-source friendly, although there would be a pretty big idealogical issue to overcome to bridge the gap between the **AA and the OSS community. Apply my question above to what might happen in this scenario. It's not clear to me what problems might arise. I'm going to have to search sourceforge and freshmeat for "DRM", now...
As for the court's other insanities, believe me, I know about them. They're talking about building a several hundred mile long, 1/4 to 1 mile wide "Texas Corridor" that is supposedly good use of eminent domain because of the economic impact it may or may not have. I imagine they'll be spending a tiny bit of that economic advantage on road upkeep, but hey, I'm not a senator.
Re:And Paramount's response?
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
...but all of those would just end up on showtime and HBO...
From the last time I quoted you (when you were qouting the SCOTUS):
"with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"
and then...
"...The two preconditions are not "distribution" and "criminal promotion", but "distribution" and "criminal intent"..."
Okay...criminal intent. somebody meant to do something criminal. That means that there was a particular thing that they meant to do, in this case that's inducement to copyright infringement or contributory infringement (bundled up into the word "promotion").
"...I repeat: the promotion is only evidence of the intent. Internal e-mails saying "yay! aiding piracy is going to make us rich!" (which also exist in this case because these companies are run by morons) would serve equally well (once discovery finished), even with no external promotional campaign. And once you have demonstrated this criminal intent, the doctrine of unclean hands means "you can't distribute this kind of software," since that evidence forever more shows the pre-existing criminal intent..."
Yep. of your company, not your software.
Can they (legally) sell the software to someone with clean hands so that other person can distribute it while not promoting its use to infringe copyright? If they can legally do that, then I will admit that you thought this out better than I did and I'll cease being annoyed by the decision.
Re:And Paramount's response?
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
"...Get funding from a studio for a pilot, make something good that they couldn't possibly accept..."
How would that work? If it was good enough to be worth trying to sell, they'd put it on TV. Unless, of course they were Warner Brothers, who evidently needs better test audiences or executives who are a bit more in-touch with normal humans.
Abandoned works are a real problem, and since congress seems like they'll just keep extending copyright as long as Disney is still an active company, many projects like this will never see the light of day because of poor decisions and stupid people.
One of the moves afoot has to do with copyrighted material reverting to the public domain if it is not actively published for a certain period of time...much like you mentioned. In this case, and because of the specific decision that WB made regarding the show, them retaining copyright on the pilot episode might not be the best way to promote the arts.
A show that's topical and has people that want to see it does not serve a purpose kept out of the light of day. No, WB doesn't have to make any more episodes. They already consider the money for the pilot spent, so they could either change their mind and put it on the air and make some ad revenue, let the producer have it, or let people watch the file on BT.
Those choices do nothing except for possibly making WB some money should they decide to air it. The only way they will be harmed monetarily is if they keep the pilot locked away and insist that no one watches it, so what's their beef about protecting some supposedly-precious IP?
Distribution is not prohibited. What is prohibited is distribution "with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" -- emphasis added. You can create and even distribute software package that can be used for either lawful or unlawful purposes, but you can't do it going "wink, wink, nudge nudge say no more say no more"-- even inside the company.
Exactly, so stop the company from promoting it's use to infringe copyright, not from distributing the software!
I'm not missing the nuance, I'm coming at the statement from the other direction, mainly because it helps shed light on oddities like this sometimes.
The assumption that the only or best remedy is to stop them from distributing the software was one that you arrived at the same way the court did. They looked at precedence, said "well, you can't distribute software if..." and that part stuck in your head. If you start at the other end of the statement, you'll first note that "you can't promote copyright infringement" (paraphrased, of course).
There are two possible courses of action because there are two conditions that together cause the software to run afoul of the law. The first course assumes that the second condition will not be corrected, which is not necessarily the case.
It's not hard to understand, and if [infringement] were the only possible use for the software, I'd say "yep, court's right. Don't let them distribute it". Since that's not the only possible (or active) use for it, (and here I go sounding like a broken record), the illegal activity is the inducement, not the distribution of the software, in my personal view.
I didn't think that what I keep saying was that difficult to grasp, but apparently the point keeps *just* missing everybody.
The court is saying that the software is illegal because of the business practices of the companies that made it, even though the software, all by itself, might be okay. That seems very wrong to me. If the software is designed to inherently violate copyright, then I can see it (there's a possibility in Morpheus' "Top 40" search), but I don't see a good reason why Grokster's software should be legally undistributable.
The majority and both concurrences cite Sony favorably, and in particular its holding the time-shifting is a legitimate fair use.
Right, because Sony happened at a time when far less was available to copy, and because pristine copies couldn't be made. Time-shifting was what they called the piracy of the day, simply because the issue wasn't as serious for the copyright holders. A videotaped episode of Archie Bunker made by ten thousand people is not as big a deal as a clean digital copy of spider man downloaded by a hundred thousand people.
That's the reason I say that if Sony happened *today*, and it was a case of Sony selling a DVR, the court's opinion might be different, and basically only because there's far more content available. A device that records programs from a television and can be used to make pristine copies will be abused as soon as technically possible, so why is a Tivo less offensive than Grokster?
The answer is in the marketing, and since I think that should be treated as a seperate issue, I think the court got it wrong. The act of saying "you can use this to get copyrighted stuff for free (illegally)" is against the law in and of itself, and needn't affect whether or not a piece of software with more analogues than you can shake a stick at is legal to distribute. The problem wasn't the software, it was the actions of the people who used the software and the actions of the companies that distributed it.
Make those people shape up instead of saying "don't give anybody else the software". Doing that is pointless, since it doesn't change the fundamental problem.
I did R the FA (and the order, and linked to the document). I wasn't quoting them (not obvious, I know, but it would have been all italic-y), I was paraphrasing.
As I said below, without being able to distribute a piece of software, you're effectively prohibited from making that software at all. The intent is a seperate issue. If I make an ad that says "Use our software and you can get copyrighted music illegally, but for free", sue me for contributory infringement. That doesn't mean force me to stop distributing my product that has other legitimate uses.
My whole beef is that they're everything together and saying that because it's difficult for the copyright holders to identify infringers, they're allowed to sue the people who made the software they're using. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what to say.
That's a nit I'll address. If I write some software for people to use, but I don't (can't) distribute it, why did I create it? When I said "making", I was speaking practically. If they can't distribute a product, they are effectively prohibited from making that product (at least, it becomes pointless for them to do so).
"...Second, neither respondent attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated that failure as irrelevant because respondents lacked an independent duty to monitor their users. activity, this evidence underscores their intentional facilitation of their users' infringement..."
That's the second bit, but the three points they rattle off are (in a nutshell):
They actively sought out ex-napster users
They left out any way to monitor the people who used the software
They displayed ads in the software
For me, those are extremely weak justifications for the dcision, but there's more.
"...A group of copyright holders (MGM for short, but including motion picture studios, recording companies, songwriters, and music publishers) sued Grokster and StreamCast for their users' copyright infringements, alleging that they knowingly and intentionally distributed
their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U. S. C. 101 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II)..."
Ooookay...I guess that means that I can sue pretty much anyone for selling pretty much anything that can be used for illegal purposes, if I know that that particular thing is regularly used that way. Sudafed is commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamines, for example. Since I know that methamphetamine manufacture is illegal, but Sudafed continues to be sold (with its' manufacturer's knowledge of the same), I can sue them for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance. The logic is the same, and it seems ridiculous to me in both instances.
Even if I could show a record of past methamphetamine manufacture from Sudafed, and even if I could show that pharmaceutical companies were specifically not tracking purchases of their products, and even if I could show that they derived increased revenue from increased use of Sudafed, I doubt the Supreme Court would show much interest in my case.
"...MGM commissioned a statistician to conduct a systematic search, and his study showed that nearly 90% of the files available for download on the FastTrack system were copyrighted works...
What's the magic number for substantial non-infringing use? How does the amount of objectionable material on the network make a difference? Is Apache illegal? IIS? VSFTPD? Should people writing web servers take steps to make sure they don't target users who run warez sites? Should they build in functionality that lets them actively monitor what files are being served from those servers?
"...From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance.6 App. 559-563, 808-816, 939-954. And MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software..."
Okay...MGM told them that there were 8 million Copyrighted files out there. And? What is Grokster supposed to do about that, exactly? Place PSA-style ads that say "Sharing copyrighted files is wrong and illegal."...how does that help stop infringement?
Then, the opinion goes off on some tangled logic about the companies benefitting directly from infringement because more ads means more money, and more use means more ads, and more infringement (apparently *only* more infringement, as opposed to legitimate use) means more use. Even if the idea was "hey, people share lots of files...we could get a lot of ad revenue if people from napster use our software", the contribution to infringement is no greater (except for in Morpheus' "Top 4
True, but it points out something interesting, which is that wasn't the suit that was brought against them. That wasn't the offense that was noted. The really good question is "Why not?".
That's an emotional reaction, and I can understand it. I disagree with parts of it, but I understand it.
*if* that were true, it would have to be proven that the software has no other use than to train cop-killers, just like it should have to be proven in the Grokster case (no other use than to enable piracy). The creation and display of an advertisement is a seperate act from that of creating and selling the software.
The creators of GTA in the scenario you mention shouldn't have their *software* deemed illegal because of their promotional intent. I realize I didn't spell that out in that part of my post, but it was implied from earlier on.
It was unanimous, but not in the "any P2P software is illegal" sense, but in the "if you push your p2p software as a means for infringing copyright, you're just as guilty"...
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
no, no, no!
Here's the problem. The Supremes didn't say "Grokster's advertising practice promotes the act of copyright infringement and any and all promotional materials and advertisements that do so are illegal." they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
The reason that's important is that a legal interpretation of some borderline ad-campaign could make X-brand software illegal (instead of making the company change the advertisement, pay a fine, etc).
The software and the advertisement are not the problem, the infringement is (although, seperately, the promotion itself is possibly illegal).
This ruling's reasoning is not far from "My kid played GTA and shot a cop, it's partly the game publisher's fault." No, it's not. It's the (hypothetical) kid's fault...you know, the one who actually did something wrong? I don't know what they're smoking in the court these days, but it must be good.
They shouldn't be in trouble for the software they create, and promotional methods (if legal themselves), shouldn't be a factor.
People don't develop products to be used legally/non-legally, they develop products period.
You can use Grokster, your VCR, DVD-RW, 9MM pistol, baseball bat, soup ladle, or cigarette lighter for either legal or illegal purposes. That doesn't mean that poorly-thought out advertising or promotions should make those *products* illegal.
The Supreme court doesn't need to get involved in telling software developers that they can't create some specific kind of software *if* it's marketed a certain way.
The place where the legal system comes in is when somebody illegally provides a copyrighted work to somebody else. That person (and not the software developer) is guilty of a crime. The reason that this case was brought is that prosecuting individual people is time consuming, more expensive than letting things go, and generally hard to sell to the public in a good light. Throw into the mix the fact that the **AA is getting started with competing, paid-for services, and this is more a business move than a legal move.
The editor's clarification is unhelpful in that it draws the reader away from the point. The court said "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright...". I, for one, find that part of the decision disturbing, and not a qualifier for minimizing the impact of the ruling.
They say they have no beef with open-source software except for Open Source Software that has code in it that shouldn't be there. I'd say the same thing about *any* software. All Darl has to do is show what code is in those offending Open Source projects that he loathes that shouldn't be there, and we'll all be better off.
Well, Darl won't be better off if he can't come up with anything, but the rest of us will be better off.
Lets run through it. I want to send spam from buymycrap.com e-mail addresses to hotmail users.
I have a buddy at buyhiscrap.com who has a mail server he'll let me use.
I add an spf record for my domain that says "yes, the buyhiscrap.com mail server is allowed to send mail for the buymycrap.com domain".
I start spamming hotmail.
Hotmail says "don't accept any e-mail from buymycrap.com e-mail addresses"
I can only send e-mail from spf-validated mail servers, so the mail has to go through a published mail-server (no zombies, open relays, etc)
I try to send more spam to hotmail.
I can't.
I buy a new domain name. Rinse, repeat.
The burden in this scenario has just shifted from the recieving mail server to the spammer. Now the spammer has to do more legwork and the hotmail mail server admin has to do less.
when you get to the "MAIL FROM:" part of the SMTP conversation, you have total control over what happens, which means you don't have to play games with mail from: versus reply-to: addresses. If I'm not sending through a server that's supposed to be sending mail for the domain in my mail from: address, the connection is dropped. If I have that right, and I've offended the mail server admin with previous messages from that domain, the connection *can* be dropped (before a message gets transmitted).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe I didn't think of that before you just mentioned it...did you roll your own, or find a decent example? I did that once before for some old pages that had a lot of updates, but without the benefit of AJAX-type technology.
Care to share some code with the rest of us?
I've been XMLHTTP-ing a bunch of old ASP code (and made a cool cross-browser chat page), and thinking about moving a bunch of stuff to PHP. Now I might chuck it all and see if I can use Ruby instead. Scary simple.
I salute you.
since you were the first one to chime in with something along the lines of "TV != entitlement", I'll respond here.
No, *nobody* is entitled to have television, but it seems a bit unfair (to me) to make a change that mostly affects people who are less able to adapt to said change.
You aren't entitled to a boat, but if you had managed to get one with an old carbeurated two-stroke that worked just fine, and the DOT told you you couldn't take it on the lake any more unless you got a fuel-injected outboard (because it used too much gas), you'd probably be annoyed.
Just a thought.
I'd start at http://www.dtv.gov. ;)
Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job.
...which will cease to function (just like the old one) as soon as the switch happens.
If your TV is so old it can't take a cable input, you probably don't have the dough to spend on a new TV, let alone a converter box.
No, you can't buy a "digital antenna" and be just fine (same as you can't buy a "digital antenna" for your old analog cell-phone and connect to digital towers with it). You can buy a set-top box to convert the digital signal to analog, but if you're getting your daily dose of TV via rabbit-ears connected directly to your analog television, you quite possibly don't have the money to spend on it.
Not that that hasn't been mentioned about a thousand times already.
Let's take another scenario: Analog FM and AM radio have just been declared deceased by the FCC. Broadcasters will be required to transmit all audio signals digitally. You can buy a converter for each of your radios for only $30.00. Of course, that includes your walkman, the radio in your car, the expensive Onkyo/Pioneer/Sony home theater reciever in the living room, your shower radio...
This is a fairly serious issue not because it's not technically feasible, but because of the social aspect.
Typically, the FCC makes changes like this with the impact on consumers in mind. Typically, manufacturers like to make compatible technology attractive and affordable. What's evident in this case is that with this many people getting ready to have their sets go dark, something has gone awry.
Seriously, 33 million people is not a trivial number. If the industry thinks it *is* trivial, I suggest they look into how much it would cost to purchase set-top converter boxes for those televisions. Even at $50.00 a pop, that's a healthy sum.
You're making good points. This raises a question, though. Suppose (ala RedHat) SlimeCo has a product that is functionally identical to their P2P app, but is open sourced and freely available. If it was distributed under a liberal license (say, a BSD-style license), would other developers be liable for contributory infringement-type suits if they develop a derivative that's 99% slimeco code?
Sure, re-developing might not be difficult, but in the meantime, would they be in any trouble? Are their hands automatically unclean because they worked to develop the code itself with slimeco? If so, does that mean that any work they did has to be abandoned and begun anew?
I don't think that DRM needs to be nasty, necessarily. It would be possible to develop code that does the trick and is still open-source friendly, although there would be a pretty big idealogical issue to overcome to bridge the gap between the **AA and the OSS community. Apply my question above to what might happen in this scenario. It's not clear to me what problems might arise. I'm going to have to search sourceforge and freshmeat for "DRM", now...
As for the court's other insanities, believe me, I know about them. They're talking about building a several hundred mile long, 1/4 to 1 mile wide "Texas Corridor" that is supposedly good use of eminent domain because of the economic impact it may or may not have. I imagine they'll be spending a tiny bit of that economic advantage on road upkeep, but hey, I'm not a senator.
...but all of those would just end up on showtime and HBO...
"with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"
and then...
"...The two preconditions are not "distribution" and "criminal promotion", but "distribution" and "criminal intent"..."
Okay...criminal intent. somebody meant to do something criminal. That means that there was a particular thing that they meant to do, in this case that's inducement to copyright infringement or contributory infringement (bundled up into the word "promotion").
"...I repeat: the promotion is only evidence of the intent. Internal e-mails saying "yay! aiding piracy is going to make us rich!" (which also exist in this case because these companies are run by morons) would serve equally well (once discovery finished), even with no external promotional campaign. And once you have demonstrated this criminal intent, the doctrine of unclean hands means "you can't distribute this kind of software," since that evidence forever more shows the pre-existing criminal intent..."
Yep. of your company, not your software.
Can they (legally) sell the software to someone with clean hands so that other person can distribute it while not promoting its use to infringe copyright? If they can legally do that, then I will admit that you thought this out better than I did and I'll cease being annoyed by the decision.
How would that work? If it was good enough to be worth trying to sell, they'd put it on TV. Unless, of course they were Warner Brothers, who evidently needs better test audiences or executives who are a bit more in-touch with normal humans.
Abandoned works are a real problem, and since congress seems like they'll just keep extending copyright as long as Disney is still an active company, many projects like this will never see the light of day because of poor decisions and stupid people.
One of the moves afoot has to do with copyrighted material reverting to the public domain if it is not actively published for a certain period of time...much like you mentioned. In this case, and because of the specific decision that WB made regarding the show, them retaining copyright on the pilot episode might not be the best way to promote the arts.
A show that's topical and has people that want to see it does not serve a purpose kept out of the light of day. No, WB doesn't have to make any more episodes. They already consider the money for the pilot spent, so they could either change their mind and put it on the air and make some ad revenue, let the producer have it, or let people watch the file on BT.
Those choices do nothing except for possibly making WB some money should they decide to air it. The only way they will be harmed monetarily is if they keep the pilot locked away and insist that no one watches it, so what's their beef about protecting some supposedly-precious IP?
Exactly, so stop the company from promoting it's use to infringe copyright, not from distributing the software!
I'm not missing the nuance, I'm coming at the statement from the other direction, mainly because it helps shed light on oddities like this sometimes.
The assumption that the only or best remedy is to stop them from distributing the software was one that you arrived at the same way the court did. They looked at precedence, said "well, you can't distribute software if..." and that part stuck in your head. If you start at the other end of the statement, you'll first note that "you can't promote copyright infringement" (paraphrased, of course).
There are two possible courses of action because there are two conditions that together cause the software to run afoul of the law. The first course assumes that the second condition will not be corrected, which is not necessarily the case.
I didn't think that what I keep saying was that difficult to grasp, but apparently the point keeps *just* missing everybody.
The court is saying that the software is illegal because of the business practices of the companies that made it, even though the software, all by itself, might be okay. That seems very wrong to me. If the software is designed to inherently violate copyright, then I can see it (there's a possibility in Morpheus' "Top 40" search), but I don't see a good reason why Grokster's software should be legally undistributable.
Right, because Sony happened at a time when far less was available to copy, and because pristine copies couldn't be made. Time-shifting was what they called the piracy of the day, simply because the issue wasn't as serious for the copyright holders. A videotaped episode of Archie Bunker made by ten thousand people is not as big a deal as a clean digital copy of spider man downloaded by a hundred thousand people.
That's the reason I say that if Sony happened *today*, and it was a case of Sony selling a DVR, the court's opinion might be different, and basically only because there's far more content available. A device that records programs from a television and can be used to make pristine copies will be abused as soon as technically possible, so why is a Tivo less offensive than Grokster?
The answer is in the marketing, and since I think that should be treated as a seperate issue, I think the court got it wrong. The act of saying "you can use this to get copyrighted stuff for free (illegally)" is against the law in and of itself, and needn't affect whether or not a piece of software with more analogues than you can shake a stick at is legal to distribute. The problem wasn't the software, it was the actions of the people who used the software and the actions of the companies that distributed it.
Make those people shape up instead of saying "don't give anybody else the software". Doing that is pointless, since it doesn't change the fundamental problem.
As I said below, without being able to distribute a piece of software, you're effectively prohibited from making that software at all. The intent is a seperate issue. If I make an ad that says "Use our software and you can get copyrighted music illegally, but for free", sue me for contributory infringement. That doesn't mean force me to stop distributing my product that has other legitimate uses.
My whole beef is that they're everything together and saying that because it's difficult for the copyright holders to identify infringers, they're allowed to sue the people who made the software they're using. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what to say.
That's a nit I'll address. If I write some software for people to use, but I don't (can't) distribute it, why did I create it? When I said "making", I was speaking practically. If they can't distribute a product, they are effectively prohibited from making that product (at least, it becomes pointless for them to do so).
"...Second, neither respondent attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated that failure as irrelevant because respondents lacked an independent duty to monitor their users. activity, this evidence underscores their intentional facilitation of their users' infringement..."
That's the second bit, but the three points they rattle off are (in a nutshell):
For me, those are extremely weak justifications for the dcision, but there's more.
"...A group of copyright holders (MGM for short, but including motion picture studios, recording companies, songwriters, and music publishers) sued Grokster and StreamCast for their users' copyright infringements, alleging that they knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U. S. C. 101 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II)..."
Ooookay...I guess that means that I can sue pretty much anyone for selling pretty much anything that can be used for illegal purposes, if I know that that particular thing is regularly used that way. Sudafed is commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamines, for example. Since I know that methamphetamine manufacture is illegal, but Sudafed continues to be sold (with its' manufacturer's knowledge of the same), I can sue them for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance. The logic is the same, and it seems ridiculous to me in both instances.
Even if I could show a record of past methamphetamine manufacture from Sudafed, and even if I could show that pharmaceutical companies were specifically not tracking purchases of their products, and even if I could show that they derived increased revenue from increased use of Sudafed, I doubt the Supreme Court would show much interest in my case.
"...MGM commissioned a statistician to conduct a systematic search, and his study showed that nearly 90% of the files available for download on the FastTrack system were copyrighted works...
What's the magic number for substantial non-infringing use? How does the amount of objectionable material on the network make a difference? Is Apache illegal? IIS? VSFTPD? Should people writing web servers take steps to make sure they don't target users who run warez sites? Should they build in functionality that lets them actively monitor what files are being served from those servers?
"...From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance.6 App. 559-563, 808-816, 939-954. And MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software..."
Okay...MGM told them that there were 8 million Copyrighted files out there. And? What is Grokster supposed to do about that, exactly? Place PSA-style ads that say "Sharing copyrighted files is wrong and illegal."...how does that help stop infringement?
Then, the opinion goes off on some tangled logic about the companies benefitting directly from infringement because more ads means more money, and more use means more ads, and more infringement (apparently *only* more infringement, as opposed to legitimate use) means more use. Even if the idea was "hey, people share lots of files...we could get a lot of ad revenue if people from napster use our software", the contribution to infringement is no greater (except for in Morpheus' "Top 4
True, but it points out something interesting, which is that wasn't the suit that was brought against them. That wasn't the offense that was noted. The really good question is "Why not?".
*if* that were true, it would have to be proven that the software has no other use than to train cop-killers, just like it should have to be proven in the Grokster case (no other use than to enable piracy). The creation and display of an advertisement is a seperate act from that of creating and selling the software.
The creators of GTA in the scenario you mention shouldn't have their *software* deemed illegal because of their promotional intent. I realize I didn't spell that out in that part of my post, but it was implied from earlier on.
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
no, no, no!
Here's the problem. The Supremes didn't say "Grokster's advertising practice promotes the act of copyright infringement and any and all promotional materials and advertisements that do so are illegal." they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
The reason that's important is that a legal interpretation of some borderline ad-campaign could make X-brand software illegal (instead of making the company change the advertisement, pay a fine, etc).
The software and the advertisement are not the problem, the infringement is (although, seperately, the promotion itself is possibly illegal).
This ruling's reasoning is not far from "My kid played GTA and shot a cop, it's partly the game publisher's fault." No, it's not. It's the (hypothetical) kid's fault...you know, the one who actually did something wrong? I don't know what they're smoking in the court these days, but it must be good.
People don't develop products to be used legally/non-legally, they develop products period.
You can use Grokster, your VCR, DVD-RW, 9MM pistol, baseball bat, soup ladle, or cigarette lighter for either legal or illegal purposes. That doesn't mean that poorly-thought out advertising or promotions should make those *products* illegal.
The Supreme court doesn't need to get involved in telling software developers that they can't create some specific kind of software *if* it's marketed a certain way.
The place where the legal system comes in is when somebody illegally provides a copyrighted work to somebody else. That person (and not the software developer) is guilty of a crime. The reason that this case was brought is that prosecuting individual people is time consuming, more expensive than letting things go, and generally hard to sell to the public in a good light. Throw into the mix the fact that the **AA is getting started with competing, paid-for services, and this is more a business move than a legal move.
The editor's clarification is unhelpful in that it draws the reader away from the point. The court said "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright...". I, for one, find that part of the decision disturbing, and not a qualifier for minimizing the impact of the ruling.
They say they have no beef with open-source software except for Open Source Software that has code in it that shouldn't be there. I'd say the same thing about *any* software. All Darl has to do is show what code is in those offending Open Source projects that he loathes that shouldn't be there, and we'll all be better off.
Well, Darl won't be better off if he can't come up with anything, but the rest of us will be better off.
Lets run through it. I want to send spam from buymycrap.com e-mail addresses to hotmail users.
I have a buddy at buyhiscrap.com who has a mail server he'll let me use.
I add an spf record for my domain that says "yes, the buyhiscrap.com mail server is allowed to send mail for the buymycrap.com domain".
I start spamming hotmail.
Hotmail says "don't accept any e-mail from buymycrap.com e-mail addresses"
I can only send e-mail from spf-validated mail servers, so the mail has to go through a published mail-server (no zombies, open relays, etc)
I try to send more spam to hotmail.
I can't.
I buy a new domain name. Rinse, repeat.
The burden in this scenario has just shifted from the recieving mail server to the spammer. Now the spammer has to do more legwork and the hotmail mail server admin has to do less.
when you get to the "MAIL FROM:" part of the SMTP conversation, you have total control over what happens, which means you don't have to play games with mail from: versus reply-to: addresses. If I'm not sending through a server that's supposed to be sending mail for the domain in my mail from: address, the connection is dropped. If I have that right, and I've offended the mail server admin with previous messages from that domain, the connection *can* be dropped (before a message gets transmitted).