Yup, im jumping up and down and spinning in my chair- that makes my coworkers right. thank goodness I'm alone in my office, so all they hear is muffled exclamations. (they all just left anyway.) So he he ha ha!!!!
This is great news! Now if only we can convince congress to see the light...
Grokster and Morpheus are p2p file trading networks. There has been ongoing litigation (initiated by the record industry) that basically claims these services and others like them are responsible for the decline in record sales.
So the judge ruling in favor of the p2p networking has HUGE implications. This is a federal appeals court, the last arena in the judicial branch where the record companies can attempt to bully around distributers. So basically, this means:
P2P file sharing isn't inherently illegal! This is the equivalent of the sony betamax decision that is discussed a few posts ahead of your comment.
Because P2P isn't soley for illegal file sharing, P2P networks are not illegal.
Joy! oh JOY!
and the internet routes around it, right? (can't remember where that quote came from). If we really want a censorship free internet, than we shouldn't trust a code or legal agreenment to enforce anti spam measurements.
The backbone of the internet is advertising.
Yahoo mail does a great job at seperating out my spam. The google toolbar blocks most of the popups that result when I accidentaly (or idly) click onto a spammer's site. We already have many technological tools that allow us to combat spam, we don't need to regulate the internet with paper legislation.
Thoughsometimes it is annoying, spammers have a right to spam. I use a lot of free services online, and for those "free" services I trade my personal information for valuable commodities. Somehow, I traded my email address to someone who supplied that to spammers in the first place. So we didn't write up a formal contract, but I agree to view information in return for trading my information. My ISP really doesn't need to have anything to do with it.
Is it ethical to say "your business model is annoying, so we are going to squash it?"
Slashdot Mirror
This is great news! Now if only we can convince congress to see the light...
So the judge ruling in favor of the p2p networking has HUGE implications. This is a federal appeals court, the last arena in the judicial branch where the record companies can attempt to bully around distributers. So basically, this means: P2P file sharing isn't inherently illegal! This is the equivalent of the sony betamax decision that is discussed a few posts ahead of your comment. Because P2P isn't soley for illegal file sharing, P2P networks are not illegal. Joy! oh JOY!
I am still happy about this decision on a thursday afternoon. will make my weekend that much more cheerful =)
Notice that the judge also spoke in support of the Betamax decision!!! Take that Hatch!!!!
Do you think that this sends a strong statment to Congress? Does this reverse the Napster ruling?
The backbone of the internet is advertising. Yahoo mail does a great job at seperating out my spam. The google toolbar blocks most of the popups that result when I accidentaly (or idly) click onto a spammer's site. We already have many technological tools that allow us to combat spam, we don't need to regulate the internet with paper legislation.
Thoughsometimes it is annoying, spammers have a right to spam. I use a lot of free services online, and for those "free" services I trade my personal information for valuable commodities. Somehow, I traded my email address to someone who supplied that to spammers in the first place. So we didn't write up a formal contract, but I agree to view information in return for trading my information. My ISP really doesn't need to have anything to do with it.
Is it ethical to say "your business model is annoying, so we are going to squash it?"
How much control should we give a gaggle of ISPs?