Comments on: Industries digest Grokster ruling

Companies mull how Supreme Court's decision will change the landscape for the file-swapping and entertainment industries.

Filke sharing

So, what if they just move the operations out of the USA. Then whate do the regulators want to do, seek out regular cilivans? Hey, tell them to get back to work and grab real bad guys like osama, drug dealers etc.

The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.

Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.

[Earl]

Good remark

I feel that when I pay for a record,(or movie) I have paid for the so caaled copyright,& it is mine to do with what ever I pleases.

Filke sharing

So, what if they just move the operations out of the USA. Then whate do the regulators want to do, seek out regular cilivans? Hey, tell them to get back to work and grab real bad guys like osama, drug dealers etc.

The Supreme Court with a bunch of senior citizens is out of touch with this stupid ruling.

Now the recording indusrty can continue to overcharge for lousy CD's and DVD's.

[Earl]

Good remark

I feel that when I pay for a record,(or movie) I have paid for the so caaled copyright,& it is mine to do with what ever I pleases.

What about open source?

I don't know anything about P2P networks or file sharing in practice, so this question may be way off. But I'm wondering what recourse the entertainment industry would have against an open source replacement for Grokster and the like?

"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."

But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?

What about open source?

I don't know anything about P2P networks or file sharing in practice, so this question may be way off. But I'm wondering what recourse the entertainment industry would have against an open source replacement for Grokster and the like?

"The same principles that apply (in the Supreme Court decision) are going to apply to other companies that are engaging in the same business."

But what if there's no company behind the software, if it is developed by users and volunteers who claim no ownership of the software. Who could the music/movie industry sue?

Open source - a monkey wrench

I know that Limewire transformed itself into open source development to dodge the Law suits. I wonder if they can dodge it after this rule. I can see it again the special interests calling the Open source movement a plague or disease to digital world. I love the mantra that open source holds, it's the only entity that's so honest, clean, truthful and that exposes all the other operations for what they really are. I feel like a modern novel is writing itself here where two industries go against each other. The bad vs. the good. From looking at history we all know who wins a the end.

[bobby_brady]

Lawyers will find a way to sue opensource

Even if it means trying to outlaw software. That's why they get paid from the RIAA and MPAA.

Open source - a monkey wrench

I know that Limewire transformed itself into open source development to dodge the Law suits. I wonder if they can dodge it after this rule. I can see it again the special interests calling the Open source movement a plague or disease to digital world. I love the mantra that open source holds, it's the only entity that's so honest, clean, truthful and that exposes all the other operations for what they really are. I feel like a modern novel is writing itself here where two industries go against each other. The bad vs. the good. From looking at history we all know who wins a the end.

[bobby_brady]

Lawyers will find a way to sue opensource

Even if it means trying to outlaw software. That's why they get paid from the RIAA and MPAA.

[ajbright]

what ruling?

There wasn't a ruling, all the court said was go sort this out properly and don't come back until either one of you has something meaningful to say.

They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.

What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.

Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.

And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.

With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.

A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).

A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.

Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.

We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.

Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.

It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.

Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.

Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.

It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.

Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.

So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.

However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.

[Darryl Snortberry]

tax?

1)How can you be sure the tax will stop the lawsuits. The US Congress isn't exactly people friendly.

I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.

2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.

Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.

3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.

Not Me!

I'm not going to pay a tax on any internet service or piece of electronic equipment because it MIGHT be used for media play back. I seldom go to the movies because they charge too much for the crappy content quality. I can't even remember the last time I bought music. I sure as hell don't waste my limited internet bandwidth downloading that stuff. It is not because I lack the means, but rather, I have better things to do with my time and money. Yet, I have a VCR and DVD/CD players/recorders. I am content to record off of cable TV or even the radio, commercials and all, for later consumption. That's what fast forward and editing are for.

You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.

I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.

[Had_to_be_said]

The PROBLEM with any reasonable-response to such an UNREASONABLE-SITUATION.

This WAS a BIG LOSS. -both for CONSUMERS and the ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY-INDUSTRY.

What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.

Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).

And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".

A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.

Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".

Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).

So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.

Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).


And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...


>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"

That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".


>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"

In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.


>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"

What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?

Why would I have a problem with that..?


>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."

Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....

Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.

It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".

But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.

[ajbright]

what ruling?

There wasn't a ruling, all the court said was go sort this out properly and don't come back until either one of you has something meaningful to say.

They didn't rule for or against anyone, at least no more than already exists. It's still illegal to steal movies and music, but also it's still okay to use technology to make fair use copies of things we want to view or listen to later.

What's funny is that after waiting for a week in eager anticipation of a landmark internet copying ruling, the supreme court pretty much didn't do anything.

Instead of realising this (actually reading and understanding the ruling) reporters/bloggers/activisits/lobbyers on both sides delivered pre-prepared statements claiming either the end of the world or huge victory for their cause. Neither happened.

And good, because the only thing that needs to happen is not putting programmers in jail for writing software or allowing joe public to rip off anyone they feel like, but for a proper compensation model to be developed.

With a fair compensation model we get to download and share music or movies, and the artists get paid for giving us our entertainment.

A recent study and proposal by someone very much in the recording industry camp, showed that for an average of $6 a month, the real loss of revenue the record industry suffers from downloads could be compensated in full (approximately $2 billion a year, not the $10-50 billion they probably claim).

A $6 / month surcharge to say the phone bill, internet bill, or perhaps an extra $72 added to every $1000 of technology used to play back the content ($6 added to a dvd player, $12 to an ipod mini, $36 to a $500 computer etc) would cover it nicely. This six dollars by the way not only covers the cost of compensation, but also the administration required to distribute that compensation fairly - that is proportionally to the popularity of their content.

Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much, consider that this is pretty much the same system that governs radio licensing - obviously the numbers differ, but the concept is similar.

We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios - and we do pay it, usually via listening to commercials to be sure, but it does exist in real monetary terms too, we just didn't realise that a proportion of a very few types of purchases went towards this.

Checks and balances would be needed, for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media, thereby making sure that only the people that benefit from the availability of infinite downloads are the ones that pay for it.

It would be capped, so that the amount could not increase, and would be reviewed every two or three years to make sure we don't overpay.

Obviously though, this is too easy, but before you say this will never happen, you might be interested to learn that not only did this idea come from the media industry, as well as several more enlightened and informed online journalists, but is in fact already being discussed by techology and media companies.

Don't be surprised if in a year or two this model becomes reality, and also don't be alarmed.

It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines.

Funny, isn't it, that the very people that try to push this anti-establishment image are the ones trying to intimidate their own customers, children and working class families with huge lawsuits (that overcompensate them 100s of times over) and even threaten to put the so-called offenders in jail.

So while I don't believe it's okay to just take other peoples stuff without paying for it, the so-called victims of this theft deserve what they're getting.

However it would hurt them more if you not only didn't buy the music, but also didn't download and play it. It would also prove that the reason CD sales have fallen is not because people are stealing, but because we disapprove of the pricing. It's hard to sell your music to MTV, VH1 and radio stations if no-one is actually listening to it.

[Darryl Snortberry]

tax?

1)How can you be sure the tax will stop the lawsuits. The US Congress isn't exactly people friendly.

I'm fine with the way things are now....sharing 1-2 gigs a day, not worried one bit.

2)Might as well go the socialized route if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing private industry money.

Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a guaranteed 50 grand a year income.

3)How would the rich square being dependent on the government even though they are always the ones shouting about welfare.

Not Me!

I'm not going to pay a tax on any internet service or piece of electronic equipment because it MIGHT be used for media play back. I seldom go to the movies because they charge too much for the crappy content quality. I can't even remember the last time I bought music. I sure as hell don't waste my limited internet bandwidth downloading that stuff. It is not because I lack the means, but rather, I have better things to do with my time and money. Yet, I have a VCR and DVD/CD players/recorders. I am content to record off of cable TV or even the radio, commercials and all, for later consumption. That's what fast forward and editing are for.

You want to tax someone? Tax the people that are actually doing the consuming. If people can't handle that, then stop consuming. But don't burden me or those like minded with the requirement to subsidize the media industries or you the media consumers.

I actually read the ruling and I agree with it. The Betamax ruling is intact. Grokster and Streamcast are now in line to get their pee pee's whacked because they either overtly or covertly supported the illegal transfer of protected material.

[Had_to_be_said]

The PROBLEM with any reasonable-response to such an UNREASONABLE-SITUATION.

This WAS a BIG LOSS. -both for CONSUMERS and the ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY-INDUSTRY.

What WAS a stake here, in the Supreme Court, WAS the basic principle that "tool-makers" could not be held responsible for the actions of their customers.

Within the "technology" world this WAS universally known as "Sony/Betamax". It WAS, very MUCH, this principle that went to the Supreme Court, ...because numerous lower-courts HAD DISMISSED holding the software-maker "Grokster" responsible for the actions of others (who had used their products).

And, it WAS this VERY IMPORTANT "principle" (recognized by numerous courts as protecting "VCR", "copying machine" and even "tape-recorder" manufacturers, Etc.) ...which WAS "...unanimously..." DESTROYED by this latest "...Supreme Court Decision".

A "...private accusation" that a product was designed predominantly for "...copyright violation", does NOT make it so. However, now, "Grokster" WILL have to prove that it was "...innocent of promoting wrong-doing", rather than showing that its product is fundamentally-neutral as to use. And, little "Grokster" will have to do it against some of the MOST POWERFUL MONETARY-INTERESTS on the planet.

Also, DO NOT FORGET, that these same "media-interests" HAVE in the past, flatly-stated that "...not preventing such use", IS itself, "...a crime" against "Intellectual Property-Rights".

Now, thanks to this "ruling", ...if, a "technology-company" doesnt adequately PREVENT any consumer-action which the MPAA or the RIAA, just doesnt like, ...these Big-Media interests CAN simply sue the new technology OUT OF EXISTENCE (a behavior which HAS been CLEARLY-DEMONSTRATED, in the recent-past, by these same companies).

So, ...this is NOT speculation, it IS HISTORY.

Only a FOOL would believe that this "new power" wont be used for the exact-same agenda which these companies have already been pursuing (and have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon).


And, as to the rest of this SOLUTION...


>> "... for example the "tax" would only apply to modern technologies that could potentially make use of online media"

That pretty-much covers EVERY digital-device, I know of, these days. But, then I ONLY have about THIRTY-YEARS experience in the "computer-industry".


>> "...We don't object to the existing "tax" that we pay to listen to radios"

In the face of REAL-MONETARY PAYMENT (forcibly-extracted from HONEST-CITIZENS, to meet the UTTERLY LUDICROUS-CLAIMS being demanded by the "media-industries"), this analogy is simply RIDICULOUS. Furthermore, such a "use-tax" IS NOT protecting anyone in those countries which have already adopted this "prior-to-use licensing-fee" concept.


>> "..Before people start screaming that even $72 / year is too much"

What, ...to PAY-OFF multi-billion-dollar "media" companies who are merely claiming that, ...If I have ANY ACCESS to such "technologies" I WILL, without question, use it to "rob them". So, I should be, PREEMPTIVELY-FINED. ...And then, of course, this rather SUBSTANTIAL-AMOUNT of new "TAX-MONEY" should be used to maintain yet another BLOATED-BUREAUCRACY, designed specifically to give BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to ALREADY-CORRUPT BILLIONAIRES?

Why would I have a problem with that..?


>> "...It's a very small price to pay to stop 12 year girls being sued and their single mothers threatened with jail time for non-payment of fines."

Or, ...some people could stop DEFENDING, INDEFENSIBLE-ABUSES and point culpability where it TRULY BELONGS....

Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR, ...These "industries" (Recording, Motion-picture, Etc.) ARE the REALLY-DANGEROUS CROOKS here. And, currently, it is THESE CROOKS which are CLEARLY the ones RUNNING "...OUR Government", pure and simple.

It IS time to "BREAK THE BACKS" of those that are ATTACKING EVERY BASIC-PRINCIPLE of "Freedom and Democracy", in this country. And that, means REFUSING to accept such WRONGS, "...lying-down".

But, I do doubt that any of this can actually be stopped, before it gets MUCH WORSE.

[William Squire]

Legitimizing P2P

The court case will help legitimize P2P software and companies by allowing for the prosecution of companies encouraging illegal use of the software. This ruling will clean up the P2P industry so that businesses and consumers alike can feel more secure in their selection of P2P tools.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd

[bobby_brady]

Supreme court judges are ancient

So exactly how old are some of these "judges"? 85? 90? These are the same people that try and hold onto their power for as long as possible.

It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.

[bobby_brady]

Supreme court judges are ancient

So exactly how old are some of these "judges"? 85? 90? These are the same people that try and hold onto their power for as long as possible.

It's just another example of the system taking back more and more rights from consumers.

[William Squire]

Legitimizing P2P

The court case will help legitimize P2P software and companies by allowing for the prosecution of companies encouraging illegal use of the software. This ruling will clean up the P2P industry so that businesses and consumers alike can feel more secure in their selection of P2P tools.

http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd