Supreme Court ruling on P2P announced

[mattymac1000]

A major victory for the record and movie industry was announced yesterday. The Supreme Court ruled against Grokster and Streamcast/Morpheus.

They ruled that these P2P networks are breaking the law by allowing distribution of copyrighted material.

The key argument seemed to have been that while these networks aren't promoting illegal file sharing, they may NOT cry ignorance as their defense to the fact that 90% of all files shared are copyrighted.

Some see it as a blow to technology, as it will stifle new inventions. Grokster basically said, "we just invented the technology, we don't dictate how it's used." Ironically, that was Sony's defense when they were sued back in the 70s for their VCRs.

Of course now all these companies will be operating outside of the U.S. to avoid being sued.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.file.sharing.ap/index.html

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Of course now all these companies will be operating outside of the U.S. to avoid being sued.

Not quite that easy. People and organizations in the US who are illegally "swapping" copyrighted works are still libel for infringement. Your chances of being caught are slim (at the moment) but as privacy issues continue to be eroded by things like "Homeland Security" it is easy to see a time when personal internet accounts could be tracked for all sorts of "illegal" activities (including file swapping.) Just because the source may be off shore, that does not release the participants in the US from prosecution.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by MIDI Life Crisis:

Of course now all these companies will be operating outside of the U.S. to avoid being sued.

Not quite that easy. People and organizations in the US who are illegally "swapping" copyrighted works are still libel for infringement. Your chances of being caught are slim (at the moment) but as privacy issues continue to be eroded by things like "Homeland Security" it is easy to see a time when personal internet accounts could be tracked for all sorts of "illegal" activities (including file swapping.) Just because the source may be off shore, that does not release the participants in the US from prosecution.

Of course. But this case wasn't about the individual users, it's about the means of which they are swapping. The RIAA will continue to sue the kids who are downloading and swapping mass amounts of files. But the real problem is the stopping the tens of millions of people each day who are downloading one or two songs - it adds up. And that, is where the companies who operate off-shore will continue to flourish.

They want the drug dealers, not the drug users.

-Matthew

[dougieb]

A lame ruling...

Using that logic, you could say that Boeing is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course... if Boeing were to state in their sales manuals "would make a great missile", well that might be more applicable. If that is the context in which the ruling was drafted, maybe I could see it flying.

Is their ruling a reversal of the Sony ruling? Because if that's the case, look for some serious lawsuits (ironically with the changes since the ruling, Sony may actually be suing itself in this case - lol)

My biggest fear is that the manufacturers of EVERYTHING from spoons to computers, to mp3 players to towels to DVD drives have to add additional $ to the price of their products to pay off these ignorant lawsuits.

In this case, the drug dealers ARE the users. There is no "top of the pyramid" main instigator.

~d

[dougieb]

Originally posted by MIDI Life Crisis:

...Your chances of being caught are slim (at the moment) but as privacy issues continue to be eroded by things like "Homeland Security" it is easy to see a time when personal internet accounts could be tracked for all sorts of "illegal" activities (including file swapping.)

(lol) Yeah, but they are only going to use Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act for terrorists - they promised, remember? ... oh, and bad politicians (San Diego), and money laundering (Everywhere) and .... ???

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by dougieb:
A lame ruling...

Using that logic, you could say that Boeing is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Of course... if Boeing were to state in their sales manuals "would make a great missile", well that might be more applicable. If that is the context in which the ruling was drafted, maybe I could see it flying.

Is their ruling a reversal of the Sony ruling? Because if that's the case, look for some serious lawsuits (ironically with the changes since the ruling, Sony may actually be suing itself in this case - lol)

My biggest fear is that the manufacturers of EVERYTHING from spoons to computers, to mp3 players to towels to DVD drives have to add additional $ to the price of their products to pay off these ignorant lawsuits.

In this case, the drug dealers ARE the users. There is no "top of the pyramid" main instigator.

~d

I see what you are saying, and that kept me on the fence of this ruling. I read the entire "Opinion of the Court" at work a few weeks ago and it's very interesting actually. They make some very good points. Grokster has created a technology of which almost 100% is used for illegal activity. That's pretty staggering. Of course they aren't blatantly promoting illegal downloads, but unfortunately their registered users are.

It is NOT a reversal of the Sony (ironically one of the companies suing Grokster) ruling. The difference is that Sony massed produced and sold VCRs, but only a tiny percentage used them for illegal duplication of videos. Everyone in America owns one, but do you know anyone who is using it to duplicate and distribute Jaws? Nope.

So your Boeing analogy doesn't quite hold water. Boeing doesn't give terrorists free flights on their flights.

-Matthew

[m2]

In this case, the drug dealers ARE the users. There is no "top of the pyramid" main instigator

Actually I have to disagree; first Napster; now Grokster and others in between are most certainly "main instigators". How else would you define them?

Copywrite infingment is still copywrite infringment.

[twistedtom]

One of my freinds who has been the biggest p2p user dose not use p2p for music any more. He say's there are too many fake files that do not work and uses a Russian site that you pay around 5 cents a song.

[builder]

Just out of curiosity, where did you get 100% of p2p users are illegally transfering files?

The problem with p2p's are the goverement makes no money on them.

The Boeing example wasn't a good one, but the idea behind is makes sense.

What about Gun manufacturers? The gun was created to kill things, plain and simple. They say that the fully automatic 40 caliber machine gun is great for hunting......give me a break. I do not have any hard facts to quote, but I listen to the news regualarly and there is not a day that goes by that I do not hear about some incident involving a gun..... illegally. So if the creater of the gun cannot be held accountable for the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thoasands of poeple killed by guns, then I don't see how the creater of software that was develeped to send information more effeciently desires the same. Why not Al Gore, he created the internet and look at all the identity theft, child preditors, and scamers that now have a place to do what they best.

Now before you jump down my throat, I am not a advicate of file-sharing. I think that court rulings like these open doors to less freedom and more goverment in our lives.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by builder:
Just out of curiosity, where did you get 100% of p2p users are illegally transfering files?

The problem with p2p's are the goverement makes no money on them.

The Boeing example wasn't a good one, but the idea behind is makes sense.

What about Gun manufacturers? The gun was created to kill things, plain and simple. They say that the fully automatic 40 caliber machine gun is great for hunting......give me a break. I do not have any hard facts to quote, but I listen to the news regualarly and there is not a day that goes by that I do not hear about some incident involving a gun..... illegally. So if the creater of the gun cannot be held accountable for the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thoasands of poeple killed by guns, then I don't see how the creater of software that was develeped to send information more effeciently desires the same. Why not Al Gore, he created the internet and look at all the identity theft, child preditors, and scamers that now have a place to do what they best.

Now before you jump down my throat, I am not a advicate of file-sharing. I think that court rulings like these open doors to less freedom and more goverment in our lives.

I exaggerated the "nearly 100%." In an independent audit (per the Court's findings)nine out of ten files shared were copywritten material. I believe the actual number was 92%(?).

As for the gun makers being compared to p2ps, again, with all due respect, I don't think it's a great analogy. As you know, the Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms. People hate to mess with the constitution. However, the law is quite clear in that authors have rights. The Courts are there to protect those rights.

Staying with the analogy, there are millions of guns in the U.S., less than 1% will be used in an illegal activity.

As the ruling stated (with reservations), despite all the technologies invented and the good intentions meant, a business cannot thrive on such a high rate of illegal activity.

And for the record, I hate the NRA, I hate guns, and I hate people who kill Bambi!!!

-Matthew

[builder]

It is the principle I am referring. Yes the Constitution says you allowed to bear arms. It also said at one point that slaves were 3/5 of white people, and women could finally vote more than 150 years after its inception. The right bear arms in 1776 was a hell of a lot different than 2005, and I think you would agree.

Using this logic, CD-R companys should be held liable because nearly 100% of all illegally download files are burned on CDR if they are going to stored or transfered by hard copy.

It is the same •••• when they said that individual broadcasters can be fined personally if the use indecent speech on the airway's. The first amendmant does say freedom of speech.......right?

I do appreciate your views though.

Later

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by builder:
It is the principle I am referring. Yes the Constitution says you allowed to bear arms. It also said at one point that slaves were 3/5 of white people, and women could finally vote more than 150 years after its inception. The right bear arms in 1776 was a hell of a lot different than 2005, and I think you would agree.

Using this logic, CD-R companys should be held liable because nearly 100% of all illegally download files are burned on CDR if they are going to stored or transfered by hard copy.

It is the same •••• when they said that individual broadcasters can be fined personally if the use indecent speech on the airway's. The first amendmant does say freedom of speech.......right?

I do appreciate your views though.

Later

I agree with you completely on the CD-Rs. It's a double standard for some reason. Perhaps because it's pretty easy to monitor what's being transferred over the web (p2p), but it hard to catch a guy in the act of burning the new R-Kelly album for his buddy.

The police turn a blind eye towards these street venders peddling burned CDs as well for some reason.

Alas, the world's pretty complicated. But, it's Friday and I'm going to find solace by having cold ones with good people at the local outdoor pub tonight.

Cheers!

[toodamnhip]

Maybe all of us should take appreciation of the fact that the supreme court finally had the effin balls to say.."Hey Grokster, you can't hide behind a technicality ass-wipes, you are creating theft on a grand scale and you effin know it!".

Those who blab about freedom..take note of a little effin common sense on the part of the supreme court ruling, something rare in law altogether....

Hurray..for once a lawyer or judge should NOT be shot for being a crook or a retard...

I'm out!

[BKK-OZ]

As you know, the Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms...

Staying with the analogy, there are millions of guns in the U.S., less than 1% will be used in an illegal activity.

And for the record, I hate the NRA, I hate guns, and I hate people who kill Bambi!!!

-Matthew

You yanks don't even know your own laws! That distortion of the US Constitution sooooo nauseates me I just have to set it right. Your constitution actually reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So, the so-called right is ONLY attached to "A well regulated militia...", it is not some sort of absolute right to own/bear anything, much less a gun.

Sorry to go a bit OT, but man, every time I see that kind of perversion used anywhere, I just feel like puking. I know that the original poster made his feelings clear about the NRA, etc. but I just can't let that one go past without comment.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by BKK-OZ:

As you know, the Second Amendment allows us the right to bear arms...

Staying with the analogy, there are millions of guns in the U.S., less than 1% will be used in an illegal activity.

And for the record, I hate the NRA, I hate guns, and I hate people who kill Bambi!!!

-Matthew

You yanks don't even know your own laws! That distortion of the US Constitution sooooo nauseates me I just have to set it right. Your constitution actually reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So, the so-called right is ONLY attached to "A well regulated militia...", it is not some sort of absolute right to own/bear anything, much less a gun.

Yes, that's what The Constitution literally says, and I agree with you. Unfortunately in this case, as we are no longer in the late 18th century, modern interpretation of the Constitution has defined the second amendment into, as I stated in my original post, an "individuals right to bear arms." There are mountains of court rulings to support this "modern" definition whether you personally agree with it or not. That's what the Supreme Court does, they further define and interpret the Constitution and evolve it into modern societal laws.