Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P

By Nate Mook and Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 27, 2005, 11:05 AM

In a long-awaited decision that could have stark repercussions for P2P networks, the United States Supreme Court on Monday gave record labels and movie studios a green light to sue file-sharing services such as Grokster and Morpheus, which maintained they were not responsible for the actions of their users.

The Court rejected arguments saying such lawsuits could quell the spread and growth of new digital video and audio devices, instead siding with companies holding the rights to copyrighted work.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling means that the case against Grokster is sent back to the lower court, which had previously ruled that file sharing companies could not be held liable for copyright infringement. According to the Supreme Court, there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial.

Grokster and StreamCast Networks were relying on the Supreme Court's 1984 Betamax ruling that stated Sony could not be sued over customers using VCRs to record copyrighted content illegally. Justice Souter said there was a key difference in the way file sharing companies marketed their products and whether they took steps to reduce infringement.

"There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," Souter wrote.

Add a Comment (112 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By mdsmdsmdsmds

posted Mar 31, 2006 - 1:12 PM

i have joined shareaza but find it slow i am on windows xp sev pack 2 prof.
any tips

Score: 0

By mdsmdsmdsmds

edited Mar 30, 2006 - 6:11 AM

why does it take sometime days 2 download a film, and what is a torrent

Score: 0

By Jor-el

edited Feb 22, 2006 - 3:37 PM

Friends, friends so much talk yet in the end it all comes down to one thing. The more you ban the bigger it gets. The more you repress the more loopholes are found to get around that repression.

If they try to destroy P2P networks by attacking the servers you get around the need for having them at all.

In the end they'll have to jail millions of people and even then it will never stop.

Can you imagine them trying to stop file sharing when millions of computers are all linked to each other without the need of any type of central hub or server? Even if they do manage to do that then someone else will come up with anew method, there's no stopping human ingenuity!

Score: 0

By in.texas.d

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 4:48 PM

I don't see the point of what suing P2P is goin g to have. People will just use foreign networks not governed by laws in the US. try to sue that RIAA> lol.
On one hand, the RIAA and MPAA is getting their money, they are greedy , they want more.

But all this conjecturing about suing and p2p can be ended by saying that development can stay domestic, but hosting and the likes will go Global.

Score: 0

By Portal3

posted Sep 7, 2005 - 3:12 AM

Keeping in mind that these networks shouldn't represent "P2P". Other networks actually bother to abide the law, not to an extent of preventing others from breaking the law - just not promoting it's use for infringing copyright.

Score: 0

By BlueManGroup

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 1:09 PM

Has anyone mentioned how valuable torrent downloads are for *nix ISO downloads? They help keep *nix (more) free, and alive.

And what about megalithic updates like SP2. I got SP2 via torrent -- crc'd it of course. The M$ site was too dragged down to get it directly. Now my son downloads WarCrack updates via torrent as well.

Finally, the big 40 egos, I mean artists, are stifling creativity in the industry. Who says that 3/4 of them deserve to be there?! p2p and any other user-controlled means (like libraries) allow the majority of us to vote and thus find new artistic talent.

The RIAA is like Disney, who were not satisfied with their 50 year monopoly on Goofy, et al. Disney also hit congress to extend their monopoly another 20 or 25 years.

I hear the sounds of dinosaurs mating.

The music field has a greatly expanded listening audience now, thanks to p2p (and to a lesser extent libraries, and mp3 portable devices -- also fought over in the courts).

Clearly p2p has numerous valuable uses, like cars and spray cans.

By the way, props to all who have commented about the continuing erosion of our rights via the court system.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 12:15 PM

What a week! First there's the ruling that police are not required to enforce restraining orders, even in violent cases (known to be potentially violent and documented as such). Then there's the ruling that imminent domain can be appropriated by local governments for private uses. Then, cable companies do not have to allow competing ISPs to lease their infrastructure. And now this. I have to say that this one is probably the least significant in terms of impacting our daily lives (most of us anyway), compared to the others.

We're taking so many steps backwards in America so fast, that we're going to step off a cliff and not even know it. Total insanity. I seriously hope there's a big legal "correction" (akin to a market correction) in the coming years.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 10:13 AM

a tyrant sends out guys who drive around in the country/city/town (everywhere), making a lot of noise, which they call "entertainment". After they're done with it, the tyrant sends other guys who go from door to door to cash people for the noise the first guys made, calling it "entertainment tax".

think about it.

from the judges view the whole matter is just about people who deny their responsibility following their doings. from that standpoint it's clear : this cannot be tolerated.

but who is responsible for the consequences of the judge's ruling? does anybody even think about that?

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 10:31 AM

Hey??

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 10:53 AM

Think about it, man.

Who rules? Who makes the rules? What is democracy?

To be clear -- I personally do not use P2P at all, never did. But this is not only about P2P. This is about ruling.

Does the "people" really govern - as everybody will tell who, when defining "democracy".

Who ever asks you and me about their ruling?

I'm just trying to get people thinking about the basis of our societies and the social rules we are all meant to follow.

If you read all comments, you can state that there are different kind of people. Those who agree, those who disagree, those who try to follow, those who deny to follow, others who try to be "factual" and so on.

But who of the rulers even care about what you and I think, agree or disagree??????!!!!

They are making such laws nowadays with which they can sue practically everybody for whatever they like to sue them - after offering techniques and technical devices giving us the possibility to communicate, to share.

voilà!

Is not all this about sharing? In the elemental school they have their "sharing day". What a great opportunity this can be. But no, if only money wasn't involved . . .

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 12:00 PM

We don't live in a true democracy. Never have. The US is essentically an oligarchical system. People can argue ideals and technicalities, but when you get down to the roots, it's ruled by money. Our legal system is propped up by a Congress of lawyers, who subsist from market trade and revenue. If there was ever a clear example of conflict of interest, it's the U.S. Senate and Congress. That said, big business is their big friend. RIAA and MPAA are big friends.

Splitting hairs over the intellectual property aspects: you could argue that owning a camera or any recording or capture device, empowers the possessor of such devices to infringe upon the rights of other works. That could be argued broadly as anyone owning a camera could infringe copyright or trademark rights and therefore, we should outlaw cameras, tape records, solid-state recorders, fax machines, photocopiers, etc.?

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 10:57 AM

Well that's America for ya. Land of the brave to invade and home of the free to sue.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 11:07 AM

Well - this is not just going on in the USA, this is happening in Europe, too. And, in my eyes, this will be happening everywhere in this world - once they conquered every corner with their economical plutocratical, falsely so-called "democracy".

One cannot evade this. It is coming and swapping into every corner . . .

But, what is sad: nobody even cares. If you'd try to find a majority of people to go against such rules, you won't succeed in even getting three together.

But, nonetheless, I continue to ask questions.

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 12:20 PM

Oooookaaay, right. It is all a conspiracy y'know? ;)

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 9:04 AM

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties".

Grokster and StreamCast have nothing to be worried about. It has to be proved that they have been promoting infringement of copyright by either - clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement. How can you prove that someone has been promoting infringement if they've not done so? Writing a tool that enables sharing does not promote infringement of copyright. If that were the case then you could say that Microsoft have a case against Xteq for writing X-Setup because it hacks into their operating system. Or why don't the RIAA sue Ahead for writing Nero or Roxio for EasyCD because they enables users to copy music onto CD?

They have nothing to worry about at all.

EDIT:
Apparently (without going into it all - I have read the ruling now), they are culpable and I don't really know where they'd go from here. They seem to be culpable but based on the ruling, it's not a general rule to be applied to all p2ps - just in this particular case.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 8:46 AM

They have a lot to worry about. By making no effort to prevent piracy, by openly encouraging users to share their music by default, they have a hard case ahead of them. Kazaa's tagline is:

"Search for and download music, movies, games, software"

Do you really think Kazaa is going to fool a judge/jury into thinking it meant all of the non-copyrighted movies, games and software?

These companies have been making millions by encouraging people to share files, and then laugh all the way to the bank as the user is the one that gets busted by the RIAA/MPAA. That's not a hard case to prove.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 9:17 AM

I agree, I've read the ruling now. It's the issue of promotion of infringement that's the bottom line. And going way back in time it would seem that they did promote infringement afterall.

Score: 0

By Eeyan

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 1:41 AM

So who paid the judge?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 12:49 PM

You mean all 9 of them? Funny Betanews doesn't mention it's a 9-0 unanimous vote--so much for those darn Republicans taking over the world theory...or not...(new comments above)

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 12:57 AM

This is a stupid tardish cat n' mouse game that doesn't and will probably never affect me (at least) so I don't give a rat's patutie.

I'll continue to 'share' files and encourage and teach others how to teach others how to do it. And when there's new ways to get past the eventual death of many p2p networks due to this ruling, I'll spread and teach those methods as well.

The RIAA/MPAA are the real criminals here, everyone knows it. Wealthy, and extrordinarily POWERFUL criminals. We're talking almost on the same level as government and OIL corporations. Just a bunch of f'ng GANGSTERS if you ask me.

The point, we gotta wipe'em out before they wipe us out. Period. And it will happen and we will see this wonderful event in OUR lifetimes.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 5:01 AM

Wow, this is perhaps the most educated and intelligent post I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 1:40 PM

Hey no prob. Sometimes those who have less education and intelligence find it difficult to comprehend opinions of higher intelligence so they just write it off and go on with their lives. ;)

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:04 PM

Some here make the case that it's not P2P technology itself which the Supreme Court finds illegal or problematic but rather only the promotion of it for the purpose of copyright infringement. But suppose I simply write an article in which I encourage copyright infringement and in which I make the case that all such laws unconstitutional. I may well be wrong in my position, but do I not have freedom of speech to make this case nonetheless? (Don't answer just yet...)

As I say above, we have already established that merely to manufacture P2P software is not itself ipso facto illegal. Instead, what is illegal is the promotion of the use of these tools for copyright infringement. But this separation is very alarming, because it would appear to prohibit speech rather than product development. It prohibits the taking of a certain position.

In the United States I am not legally free to smoke marijuana, but I am legally free to advocate the legalization of marijuana and I'm free even to advocate that people smoke marijuana at the present time. In other words, it is the practice which is prohibited and not any position of advocacy thereto. And since the Court presumes not to criminalize P2P technology itself but rather only a political position regarding the USE of that technology, it seems to me this is unconstitutional on grounds of violation of the First Amendment.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:55 PM

Words are completely separate from actions. You can stand up and say you want to rob a record store all you want. You can even encourage people to steal if you want.

But the second you provide them the key to the door, or help lift them through the second floor window, you too are liable for those actions.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 1:02 PM

Some false logic there. If you incite a riot, you are held liable, even though you could claim that all you did was speak.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 11:44 PM

You say, "...the second you provide them the key to the door, or help lift them through the second floor window, you too are liable for those actions."

No, the Court has specifically said (by invoking the Sony case) that the mere existence or invention of P2P technology is not subject to prohibition. Distributing file sharing clients is not ipso facto illegal either. In other words, handing people the key is not the issue.

Instead it is only certain uses that the Court objects to -- though of course these uses (of the unauthorized download and upload of copyrighted works) are already prohibited by the Copyright Act and the DCMA -- with certain caveats, such as the Doctrine of Fair Use and exceptions for Libraries.

So why the need for any additional ruling? Well, now the Court is going a step further to prohibit the "promotion" of these tools for a specific purpose. "Promotion" is speech -- pure and simple. If the tools themselves are legal, and if it's legal to develop and distribute them, but it's illegal to TALK about them in a certain way, this is an unconstitutional violation of our First Amendment rights.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 8:38 AM

Again, speech is completely different from actions. If you are enabling someone to commit a crime, you are liable for that person's actions. If you hand someone a gun knowing full well they are going to kill someone, you are liable. If you supply someone with the means to steal music, and encourage them to do so, you are liable. That is not an opinion, it's how the law has been for 200 years.

If you help train terrorists, you will be taken to court even if you did not help blow something up. By being an enabler, you are part of the crime. And this is exactly what the Supreme Court said in this case.

The P2P technology isn't illegal. Web browsers aren't illegal. IM networks aren't illegal. VCRs are not illegal (per the Betamax ruling). But supplying software specifically designed to encourage users to steal millions of songs and promoted for that specific purpose crosses the line. That's not my opinion, it's the finding of the court.

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 4:30 PM

" If you are enabling someone to commit a crime, you are liable for that person's actions."

Such a liberal point of view. No personal responsibility for your own actions. If I serve alcohol to a legal aged adult... they get drunk... go get in a car... have a wreck and kill someone, how am I liable? What a crock of crap. The legal aged adult knows the effects of alcohol. They made a conscious choice to drink. It is their choice. They are responsible for their actions. I did not force this person to drink. I did not force them to drive. I did not force them to kill someone in a car wreck. We live the grand ole U.S. "of no personal responsiblity" A. Welcome to the land of no integrity. It is much easier to point a finger and shift the blame. What a bunch of cowards.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 12:09 PM

The critical difference everyone is missing here is who the players are. You can talk or write all day promoting illegal activities (with some restrictions), but in this case, the owner of the wares themselves were the ones promoting the questionable purpose. This is ENTIRELY different that you or I promoting such uses. If the vendor themselves say "use our product to break the law" they are directly implicating themselves in such activity as willing accomplices.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 2:32 AM

In case you've been living in a cave the last 20 years and havent been watching, the government has systematically been nullifying the constitution by means of minor ammendments upon minor ammendments upon minor ammendments. These days we have no rights other than those to let the government do anything they desire. This has been going on for the last two decades, and will continue for the next five or ten until the government has total and complete power without bounds or limitations.
look into this before spouting off a reply. look at every constitutional right, and look at the modern day world's laws and you will see that the constitution is now just a neat little useless historical document, and the bill of rights? might as well not even exist because nothing on it is valid anymore.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 7:26 AM

God, what it must be to live in America. What a bunch of idiots. I'm glad I don't live there. You'll be the destruction of yourselves.

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 4:37 PM

Aires,

I live here in the U.S.A. and saidly, I tend to agree with you. The people are lazy. They complain about everything and do nothing. The only time we are a truely strong nation is for a short time after a sweeping disaster or a terrorist attack. It takes less than a year for the majority to return to their ways of the Lemmings. You know... you could compare us to herd animals and you would not be far off base.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 10:49 AM

Sadley you are not mistaken with that statement. You'll find that most Americans aren't really this bad, however--just most of 'em that waste their lives on Betanews forums (yeah like me. Kills time waiting for my next call at work though :)

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 8:40 AM

At least we don't have to pay the equivalent of $5 for one gallon of gasoline!

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 4:38 PM

Not currently.... it is coming soon to a gas pump near you.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 10:36 AM

Aye. You just invade and commandeer it. Incidentally can anyone say Kyoto? ;)

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 1:18 PM

Hey, I didn't vote for him!

Score: 0

By supermanforever

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 10:20 PM

If somebody learned how to open doors and gates from a locksmith. If he use the technic to steal things who should responsible. The locksmith or the guy himself? Nothing to do with the technology or the technic itself. Only depends on how people use it.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 28, 2005 - 8:42 AM

If the locksmith trains the person specifically to crack a bank vault knowing he is going to rob a bank, then he is also responsible.

It may be a fine distinction, but there is a distinction nonetheless. You're right, it's not the technology, it's the way it's used. And in this case, the Supreme Court found that the way it's used is to encourage illegal activity (or at least there is enough facts to make that argument).

Score: 0

By SaCo

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 7:07 PM

wa wa wa they ruled weed being a controlled sub and look ppl still do it ...so whast gonna stop ppl from file shareing..u got a few P2p apps but i share free ware apps and and open source progs am i a bad person cause the way they show it is SHAREING IS BAD AND ONLY PIRATES AND BOOTLEGGERS DO IT

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 10:29 PM

Could somebody share with me in English what this person is trying to say?

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 5:37 PM

This is the dumbest idea yet...ok look at it this way the people that are whining and suing have more money then any of us will see in our lifetimes... but are they out of jobs? Did they have to cut down from driving a porsche to a lexus? I mean seriousily this is PURE GREED...the riaa does not give a d*** about little indie labels or underground labels that sell maybe 2000 cds for one artist...this is about the top 40 artists... plain and simple that only have to make music to live on we pay anywhere from $30 - $300 for a ticket to a show, t-shirts and other merchandise, and then whatever other garbage we buy as fans to feel "closer" to said artist...the thing that labels fail to realize is the sales are going down because people get to hear what they are buying before they buy it not because of stealing (there are probably a lot of people that simply download music and thats it but there are lots of people that know the difference between mp3s and cds (mp3s will ALWAYS be inferior in sound)
If you dont believe me test it yourself listen to an mp3 on a decent stereo then listen to the cd you will notice a significant difference but then again a lot of people are not concerned with this just as long as they have the newest song by so and so...so anyways downloading has helped people realize hey theres only one good song on this cd why am I going to pay 12 bucks for this crap?? All in all there is something seriousily wrong in our system...a doctor saves lives everyday and goes to school for 4+ years and may make about 70,000 to start a nobody who can sing can make a 1,000,000 just because of a voice...or because you can play sports well hey we will give you a 1,000,000 as well or how about wow you can read lines from a script and show emotion you get 1,000,000 as well! I feel downloading has opened peoples minds and its like wow there was one good song I am so glad I didnt buy this garbage. Same thing with movies
movies are still making lots of money and they recoupe their expenses but they think that people downloading is hurting them the only thing it is doing is allowing people to see hey this movie sucks why did I buy this I just wasted 20 dollars... this is my opinion on this but it won't change p2p will always exist whether they close grokster and morpheus big deal someone will come out with something else that will challenge said laws and riaa will whine again

Score: 0

By shy_one

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 3:09 PM

after reading many of the posts on this topic with the arguemnts for p2p companies openly profiting from illegal downloads i laughing because it reminds me of the shaw cable internet comercial here in canada with the saying.

now downloading the only good song on a bad cd:)

Score: 0

By NappyHead

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:54 PM

Thank God I live in Canada. Anyway, I buy all my music and I own about 1900 CDs. It sometimes pains me the price I have to pay, since Sony Canada lets me know if they get a CD from Sony US, that this warrants a $10 increase "Import" I will continue to but music only because just owning a file is not for me. I want the whole package, liner notes, artwork and so on. Guess they'll be hitting my local used CD store soon.

NH

Score: 0

By drumcat

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 2:14 PM

This is the same argument that gun control types use. If there's a shooting, go after the killer, and the company that manufactured the gun.

I don't have a problem with finding a balance... but this is just going after a visible few. P2P isn't a USA entity alone. It will continue, without much deterrence. The truth is that the RIAA figured out that suing 12 year olds and grandmothers, sometimes incorrectly, wasn't winning the PR war. It was tatamount to extortion, really. But companies -- go for it. Sue each other. No one is going to cry when Grokster is obliterated by lawyer fees and lawsuits. Maybe it even slows down P2P for a little bit. But in the end, RIAA wins some office furniture and Aeron chairs, and the software goes on. And if not a particular like Grokster, some bright kid in Somewhereistan will write the next big P2P.

What is more interesting to me... Does this give a green light to sue ISP's for using "bad" P2P software over their connection?

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:53 PM

This is all about: "To fight the weeds, tear out their roots." If the interested parties are given legal support - like right now they have been given - they will try to destroy the complete basis of what they call "copyright infringement".

What strucks me every time I read about this issue, is simply some questions that rise from my heart:

how can it be that people who are rich beyond my imagination claim to be "robbed" by not selling products? What kind of logic is this?

If really poor people are "robbed" by having to pay more and more money every month for the needful things of live, nobody even thinks, let alone talks, about "robbery".

How can it be that the same companies who make millions each and every year can talk about "loosing money" - but are still around, don't get bankrupt, still making millions?

For me this is legally, governmentally supported greed. They won't allow ANYBODY anything for free, without even thinking about what they are doing.

Money seems to be the only worth that is left and only those who make a lot of money seem to be respected as human beings these days.

Makes me kind of sad - because this is the case in the whole world, not only in the USA.

But, as in any case, each decision must be justified by those who make them . . .

Score: 0

By VMSBIGOT

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:46 PM

How is P2P any diffrent from the Radio? There has been P2P before computers were even networked. All you need is a tape recorder and a phone.
1) Insert blank tape into recorder.
2) Call local radio station
3) Request song
4) Wait till it plays and hit record
Since the radio advertises about playing song people request, we need to shut down every radio station in the world right now!

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:40 PM

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Recording from the radio gets you sub-par quality that nobody is going to sell or pirate.
2) Recording from the radio is an arduous process that is only for your own personal use, you aren't distributing it.
3) Radio is sent out open on the airwaves legally with proper licenses. People making files available on P2P networks are not doing so legally.

So actually, P2P has nothing to do with radio. Recording from the radio, backing up your CD, or tape recording from a TV is all perfectly legal. Making available for others CD-quality music you do not have the rights to is not.

Score: 0

By trw

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:23 PM

well nate
1.the lawsuits don't state anything about quality of downloads
2.it's possible to share radio copies at a bit rate that would be somewhat decent albeit not cd quality
3.Judges have ruled against program makers of cd and dvd backups.

Little by little your rights are evaporating

Score: 0

By namopereht

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:33 PM

Here is how I see it. I loan a car to a buddy and he runs down a busload of nuns I am probably not going to get into much trouble. If the same buddy tells me he wants to kill his wife and use my car to do it, and I allow him to, I am committing a crime. How about I run a hardware store and sell a can of gold spraypaint to a teenager. If I tell him "yeah, this stuff will mess you up. Here's a rag, just spray and inhale!" then I am a criminal. It's not the item or the act of using/selling the service/item, but the promotion of using the item/service for illegal purposes. Why is it people seem to think the laws are designed to be worked around. If you can't afford to buy the product legally then you don't need it. Who ever said it is your right to have these things at whatever price YOU think is proper. So what if they charge more money than you think is appropriate. The product is produced for profit. I too agree the prices for music and software are too high. Windows XP too expensive for you? Run linux and wine for whatever your needs are. Can't afford to buy those expensive albums? Listen to the radio or spend 10 bucks a month on XM or sirius. Microsoft office too expensive? Install openoffice. Can't afford to go to the theater and watch the newest cinematic pile of garbage? Wait until it comes out on video and blow 2 bucks on the rental. Yes, it is a world that is run on money. So what. No handouts or welfare. If you can't afford it, you don't need it.

By the way, I am not some overpaid slob who has more money than i know what to do with. I work hard for my living and sometimes have to save for a few weeks just to afford a new CD. My computer is 4 years old and in need of upgrading. I dont complain when I cant afford it, I wait until I can.

Score: 2

By trw

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 9:00 PM

namopereht,I agree to an extent.1st off windows as well as other countless software makers advertise their products to be able to perform certain functions and don't deliver.In some cases they don't come close.Is it for us as consumers to allow them to push inferior products and say or do nothing? I have bought a bit of software that has been so sad I threw iut away but had no recourse to get my money back.After a package is opened they will NOT take it back.I don't blame some p2p users as long as it is not sold for profit.
I don't care how much money Gates or any other people have but I do care if what they are selling stands true to what they claim.I don't buy a car and accept it running 5 or 6 days a week or just stopping in the middle of the road and hoping to get it fired up before I get hit.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:10 PM

You say "If you can't afford it, you don't need it."

Health care?
Housing?
Clothing?
Food?

Let me suggest there are many people who can't afford these things -- and yet who are actually WORKING.

Your argument assumes that any downloaded file from a P2P network would replace a purchase which otherwise would have been made. This is often not the case. There are some people who can't afford to purchase music and thus any downloads of music they make do not represent money out of the pocket of the copyright holder inasmuch as absent P2P technology no purchase would have been made anyway. So it's hard to suggest in this example that the industry suffers any damages.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:35 PM

He was talking about non-essential things for entertainment, not the necesities of life.

By your rationale, I'm not going to purchase a Mercedes Benz, so if I steal one, then they won't be losing my money and I shouldn't get into trouble.

Somehow, that justification doesn't add up.

Score: 0

By trw

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:06 PM

nate You are comparing apples and oranges.If you steal a car you have a piece of property.If a p2p user downloads a game the owner is out nothing.He still has what he made,unlike a car where he notices it gone.90% of files shared are not lost revenue for makers since most people would never have purchased it anyway.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:54 PM

I'm afraid your logic is faulty. If I steal a car, then I'm depriving an organization of materials, labor, etc., and they definitely suffer a loss -- irrespective of whether my act does or does not replace a purchase that otherwise would have been made. In contrast, with P2P, I would be taking only a copy of a file -- and no party suffers the loss of raw materials at all or indeed a loss of ANY kind unless I would otherwise have made a purchase or unless I use that file for commercial purposes.

The doctrine of fair use allows the noncommercial use of copyrighted materials under certain limits. Otherwise, all libraries would be in violation.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 5:30 PM

I agree with you on this. A file isn't actually a physical thing and there is no proof you would have bought it anyway.

My personal opinion though is that if you download something and keep it for several weeks/months/years and actively use whatever it is then it is safe to assume you would have purchased it. This is a fair solution however it works on trust and companies are not a big fan of trust :(

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Jun 28, 2005 - 10:55 AM

Jeez Jeff, trw - what a load of bollocks.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:03 PM

Actually... in regards to the car loan, the car is registered in your name, so you are going to be the first suspect. I hope you have evidence for the cops to prove you weren't the driver, and you should be able to prove that you did not, in fact, know what his intentions were.

Aside from that small flaw in your argument, very well said!

The problem I have with P2P is as a network admin... as an IT staff member. It sucks up bandwidth on our LAN like it's going out of style, and yet everyone whines and moans about slow speeds. So we have to regulate it, but then they get ticked off and find ways around it... rinse and repeat the cycle.

Frankly, I'll admit that I've downloaded some rare, live recordings of concerts and acoustic versions of songs, but that's pretty much it. I'm content with buying a CD from an artist I really like as long as the CD is really good. But!!!! I make it a point to try and at least preview the songs on the CD before buying it, since I've been burned by ones with 2 songs out of 15 that I actually like.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 2:35 PM

The problem with your rationale and analogies is that the developers of file sharing technology have not directly and knowingly distributed it specifically for the purpose of copyright infringement, no more than an auto manufacturer or dealer would specifically sell a car to a known alcoholic for the express purpose of driving under the influence.

Do the developers of P2P know that a percentage of people will use their technology for unethical or illegal purposes? Of course. Do auto manufacturers and dealers know that a percentage of their customers will drive while intoxicated? Again, of course. Does this make them liable for the acts of those who abuse these products? I say no.

Consider these two acts:

1. A gun dealer has a retail store and sells his products to customers (within the bounds of the law).

2. A gun dealer encounters a customer at the counter who says, "I want a gun for the specific purpose of committing an illegal act, and I want you to sell it to me."

The problem with your analogies is that you fail to differentiate between these two very different scenarios.

Score: 0

By trw

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:28 PM

that is exactly right Jeff

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:48 PM

While I see your point and somewhat agree, your analogy and acts are extreme. Sharing MP3's, I dont suspect, has caused anyone to lose a life...

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:15 PM

I agree that the analogy is extreme, but in terms of loss of life I only inherited this impact from namopereht, the original poster of this mini-thread. He (or she) was the one to first use such an analogy (in which someone would lose a life), and I was only drawing a distinction between intentionally aiding such an act versus only selling a legitimate product which may or may not be so misused.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:42 PM

Yes, except the point is that the Supreme Court found that Grokster and others WERE in fact intentionally aiding copyright infringement. So your example is accurate, and the courts found that Grokster and others fit #2.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:19 PM

No kidding...I've been trying to formulate that for years and never put it so well. If only the whiners would agree and stop whining.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:57 PM

clap clap clap I couldn't have said it better! :-)

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:51 PM

Great post. I totally agree with you.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:42 PM

I couldn't have put it better myself. Great analogies.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 1:13 PM

According to Matt Yglesias, this decision "upholds the old Sony rule that the mere fact that a technology has infringing uses is not grounds for holding its maker liable for infringement. He also seems to reject the plaintiffs' desire to transform 'substantial non-infringing use' from a qualitative standard (are there non-trivial legal uses of the technology) to a quantitative one (is the technology, in fact, mostly used legally). Instead what I think he's saying is that Grokster and StreamCast can be held liable not for their technology, but for their marketing campaign which was allegedly geared toward advertising their products' infringing uses."

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 4:29 PM

Yes, that's the point, and I think a lot of the posters here are missing it.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 1:04 PM

Congress passed the ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT in 1986. The language was drafted by corrupt CTIA lobbyists. Receivers which covered the entire 800 megahertz UHF band were outlawed; because campaign contributors, refused to scramble your car phones.

Second generation PCS networks are in a digital format that provides some security.

The mobile phone companies cannot be sued because criminals and terrorists used their services.

What else can you expect from a corrupt US Government and sleazy politicians who accept blood money from special interest groups. The McCain-Feingold law just created another mess called the 527.orgs.

We aren't talking geniuses here...

Score: 0

By darkMatter

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 1:03 PM

"""Yes, illegal downloading *does* hurt artists, but not nearly as much as the industry. """

Thats a powerful argument. I have had a few conversations about copyright and p2p in general. People dont seem to understand that the lables cause far more harm to artists than billy bunter at his/her p2p client.

People dont just download the stuff. Some people use it to sample before committing to purchase the title too.

One more argument that has not been noted here.

IBM and BEA and a few others BENEFIT DIRECTLY from p2p technology. These vendors sell very high cost application servers. Ideas birthed in p2p development are beginning to creap into their products with mind-blowing improvements.

By stifling p2p enthusiasts we're actually stifling development of advanced technologies too.

Remember, nobody licensed or copyrighted the wheel. Imagine the kind of world we would live in if that was copyrighted and patented... ?

How far is this nonsense gonna go ?

Quite far i think. Some companies are copyrighting parts of the DNA strand that came out of the human genome project. Thats how ridiculous this situation becomes...
http://lists.ffii.org/pi...en/2002-May/000158.html

Check out this craziness at the link...

As for me ? I am in the process of copyrighting the breathing process of humans. Just completing the technical document for submission. So... i will expect royalties from all of you. I am being kind enough to license this at reasonable cost, in case any of you have children ;)

*** apologies if this is a duplicate, email address has expired on the last one ***

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 12:42 PM

What a big joke. Sharman Networks is in Australia the last time I looked. Is G.W.B. gonna destroy their offices with cruise missles; if these foreigners continue to distribute P2P software. Will they start a nuclear war with China, over websites that offer downloads of Windows XP? NO! Then dream on, fools.

Iran has a new Ayatollah who hates computers. He plans to shut down internet access there. They don't like porn in those Islamic countries. Does the U.S. Congress do the same thing; so the R.I.A.A. and M.P.A.A. will finally shut up?

The U.S. gun control laws and the government's drug war are two fine examples of failed prohibition.

Boycott their corporate garbage. Buy your CDs from artists who market directly to the public. More people are doing that these days, since modern technology has made it possible...

Score: 0

By TwinsDad

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:22 PM

This isn't about P2P at all. That part of it is unimportnat. This rulling coupled with the recent ruling that governments can exercise emminent domainfor the benefit of commercial enterprises, means that rights of big business are more important to the Supreme court than the rights of citizens.

This is the death knell of person and individual liberty and the beginnings of the permanent servitude of the consumer to the corporation.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 12:34 PM

We NEVER had a "right" to download copyrighted music in the first place.

Score: 0

By Jeff Mincey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:41 PM

True, we never had a right to download copyrighted music without the consent of the owner. But that's not the point. This ruling doesn't merely seek remedies against those who are guilty of copyright infringement but it goes after also those who make the technology or tools which make such infringement possible. And THAT is fraught with implications and problems.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:39 PM

The justices ruled against the companies NOT the technology, and found that in the specific case of Grokster, they were openly advertising and profiting off tools that let people perform copyright infringement. They are not in trouble simply because they made a file sharing tool available.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:54 PM

I think the biggest problem is that there are too many people who think it was the P2P that was found to be illegal when really it was just their advertising.

Not to be rude but you don't help the situation with articles titled "U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against _P2P_" and then post a comment saying "ruled against the companies NOT the technology [P2P]" do you?

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:03 PM

Well I hope people read beyond just a short headline designed to fit in a designated space. If people only learn about the news by reading headlines, we will have a lot of uninformed citizens.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:24 PM

You only have to read slashdot to see nobody ever RTFA and everyone is uninformed ;)

Seriously though it isn't Slashdot or here that cause thses misinformation problems, it is the non-tech media companies like MSNBC and CNN which are controlled by the same (or similar) people who are fighting to get companies like Grokster shutdown (or sued to hell).

I wonder what people would think of Grokster profiting from making you a criminal. That is basically what they did as they made money from Grokster yet turned all its users into criminals who are now being sued.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 3:47 PM

Very true. If I were a Grokster user and I was sued by the RIAA, I would turn around and sue Grokster for making it seem like what I was doing was perfectly legal. Grokster even has a notice on its front page stating it is completely legal to use and Kazaa advertises its software as a way to download music, movies and software.

Score: 0

By Skilly

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:01 PM

So what does this mean for Bit Torrent? Is Micro$oft's Avalanche part of a bigger strategy to undermine its legitimacy? I hear all the boastfully talk but I think this ruling is really going to hurt the free flow of information.

Score: 0

By nightops

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 11:53 AM

I agree that there does need to be more stringent practices set in place for p2p applications. p2p is most certainly not going to stop just because it's an illegal activity. However, the RIAA is going about this backwards, and then lying to the general public about their reasons why they are fighting p2p, which only hurts their cause. Yes, illegal downloading *does* hurt artists, but not nearly as much as the industry. Artists still make the largest portion of their incomes from tours/concerts, promotions, advertising, and sponsorships. The RIAA has also over-reported their losses by a flawed calculation (extremely obvious). Acceptance without question is often the mark of ignorance. If you wish to remain in the dark, then don't bother asking the 'why' questions. However, if you want to see the hard truth, visit:
http://bigpicture.typepa...02/the_false_mathe.html
--and again with the CRIA (Canadian version of the RIAA)--
http://arstechnica.com/n...0050410-4795.html?22858
and realize you're being lied to by the RIAA and the MPAA. Don't believe it? Just do a Google search for 'RIAA losses exaggerated'...they can't all be wrong. Considering most of them say the *exact same thing*...I'm going to believe the person with no reason to lie over the industry with everything to lose.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:40 PM

Bringing RIAA into this...why? Now maybe I've lost my marbles, but I recall MGM and Grokster being parties here, not RIAA. For them or against them? I don't really care myself. I know that anyone who thinks they are smarter than the Supreme Court needs to really look at themselves first. I'm not saying they're anywhere close to perfect, but they are far more knowledgeable about these things than most of us mere mortals here in this forum.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 11:37 AM

Oh no, now it's "really" illegal. Nothing is changed. I hope the Hollywood exec's are put out of business like they claim because some of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life are from American Hollywood productions...

EDTv
Jingle All the Way
Jury Duty (1995 w/ Pauly Shore & Sandra Bullock)
Mars Attack
Speed 2
Spiceworld
Street Fighter

Those titles alone make me wish they had to rebuild from the ashes of a once great board-room.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 11:38 AM

And some of the best movies are from "American Hollywood" productions. Perhaps you just need to start picking better movies to watch?

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 11:41 AM

That was a given...nate. They get it right every now and then but what I am talking about is the ratio of bad movies that have to come out before you get something worth paying any money for. Maybe you should not jump the gun ;)

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 11:45 AM

But surely a few bad apples (and I agree, a lot of movies are junk) doesn't mean it's okay to start breaking the law? Just don't pay to see them, or read reviews before hand.

I think that $10 ticket prices and $5 for a Coke are the bigger problem.

Score: 0

By trw

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 9:45 PM

I think more than anything is the false advertisement.All the commercials for movies are very misleading.Most of the time the one or two good parts are all there is in the entire film.The commercials are out of sequence with the movies and therefore misleading to the true resemblence of their product.

Do you think it would be possible to get a refund for a crappy movie/ NOT HARDLY

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

edited Jun 27, 2005 - 11:55 AM

Well that is conflict of opinion. I don't think it's breaking the law...I think it's hurting the wallets of exec's (very vague, I know) that already have to much money to throw around. Who really needs a $5000 office chair?

Sorry for the edit but I had to add this: My point is that why are so many people in agreement with me that there is nothing wrong/don't care? Kind of like the teacher who says her students are all dumb and have low marks buy yet they excel in all their other classes? So if a board room full of people agree that it's illegal are we theives just as easy? Who is right? The people or the power?

Score: 0

By nate

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 12:42 PM

It's not an opinion. Copyright infringement is a federal crime. If you go on the streets and try to sell copied DVDs, you WILL get arrested. It's not an opinion, it's fact.

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 1:16 PM

Less you forget that the goverment was established for the people by the people...

Basically what I'm saying is that the RIAA can pass whatever they want and say whatever they want but it's the choice of the public opinion if the respect/fear the law should generate is there at all.

Ex. If the Federal Goverment said that if you whacked off you could be put into prison for up to seven years per whacking session? Would you listen to them? How do you enforce a law like that? In all honesty if I was told I could not whack off I would do it twice as much personally.

This law doesn't change anything! People are still going to create new P2P networks after they blast one and sue everybody involved!

Don't obey everything you are told. I like doing this thing in the words of the great George Carlin: "thinking!"

If you listened you everything the goverment told you then you know damn well you be over in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted Jun 27, 2005 - 2:03 PM

What concerns me more is not that people are breaking the law but that they do not care they are breaking a law.

If you think the law is stupid go to a country where that law does not apply.

The problem with peoples law is that too many people have too many different ideas and opinions. Unless you have a small group of people you will never make a decision.

Also if you don't like a movie then why the hell download and watch it? That is like hating fish and cooking yourself tuna for lunch. It doesn't make any sense.

No matter how you try justify it there is no right to take something that is not yours and that is not in the public domain.

As for your comment regarding it stopping execs making money. Are you stupid? The execs are making even MORE money these days. You not paying to see a movie or buying a CD makes no difference to them, it does make a difference to people who actually pay for the products though.

Also don't bring in the WMD bulls**t into the argument to make it look ok to steal. Iraq and WMD have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Score: 0