considering that file sharing is essentially what the web is and how it began, doesn't that hold web browsers and its makers like microsoft accountable. file swapping software only made things easier to share as far as searching and faster downloads. yet there is still a considerable amount of copyrighted material available by the web. so will we see charges against big companies or is this just the continued witch hunt for the file swapping companies
Manufacturers and distributors of knives - beware!
Manufacturers and distributors of knives - beware! if you do not take steps to watch what your customers are doing with your products, you might be liable for their use as weapons!
considering that file sharing is essentially what the web is and how it began, doesn't that hold web browsers and its makers like microsoft accountable. file swapping software only made things easier to share as far as searching and faster downloads. yet there is still a considerable amount of copyrighted material available by the web. so will we see charges against big companies or is this just the continued witch hunt for the file swapping companies
Manufacturers and distributors of knives - beware!
Manufacturers and distributors of knives - beware! if you do not take steps to watch what your customers are doing with your products, you might be liable for their use as weapons!
Last week they rules that Target and Wal-Mart can forcibly evict you from your home and land (paying only previous "market value"), now they have basically recinded the Betamax ruling from 20 years ago.
EVERYTHING in tech can be used to infringe copyright. So next, Adobe and JASC will be sued for copyright infringement cause you can edit existing pictures, then the OS companies because they have a browser that lets you save files from the net via HTTP or FTP because you could copy something infringing.
This court has gone amok. Then they say the 10 commandments cannot be displayed in a court due to separation of church and state. HOWEVER--if you are called to testify, you are FORCED, UNDER LAW and threat of CONTEMPT to "swear to God" on a Bible. Where is the rationale?
You no longer swear to God to tell the truth when you testify. Today, the judge reminds you that you ar obligated to tell the truth or face a charge of perjury.
Last week they rules that Target and Wal-Mart can forcibly evict you from your home and land (paying only previous "market value"), now they have basically recinded the Betamax ruling from 20 years ago.
EVERYTHING in tech can be used to infringe copyright. So next, Adobe and JASC will be sued for copyright infringement cause you can edit existing pictures, then the OS companies because they have a browser that lets you save files from the net via HTTP or FTP because you could copy something infringing.
This court has gone amok. Then they say the 10 commandments cannot be displayed in a court due to separation of church and state. HOWEVER--if you are called to testify, you are FORCED, UNDER LAW and threat of CONTEMPT to "swear to God" on a Bible. Where is the rationale?
You no longer swear to God to tell the truth when you testify. Today, the judge reminds you that you ar obligated to tell the truth or face a charge of perjury.
With this ruling, does this not open the door for them to say that ISP's will be help responsible for any actions a user does online?!?!?!?
Are not ISP's 3rd party instruments? A user dials in (or simply connected if you are one of the lucky broadband users out there), and transfers anything, attachments in emails, ftp's, etc. That makes the ISP the middle guy doesn't it?
With this ruling, does this not open the door for them to say that ISP's will be help responsible for any actions a user does online?!?!?!?
Are not ISP's 3rd party instruments? A user dials in (or simply connected if you are one of the lucky broadband users out there), and transfers anything, attachments in emails, ftp's, etc. That makes the ISP the middle guy doesn't it?
By the logic they applied in their decision, all software qualifies. A good example might be Windows, which quite specifically advertises their operatings systems products to be used for ripping video and music (case in point, they have a full page ad in the current Wired advising us that Windows XP is the ideal platform for ripping music, putting together and sharing your own mixes).
One could argue that MP3 players rely on an environment where people make unauthorized copies of their music collections onto computer and then the players -- they might even share the files!
Why aren't ISPs being sued en masse? If you buy the argument that SCOTUS did and the wording of their decision, it's only logical that the telecommunication and cable industries are selling the key ingredient in infringment (more so that P2P networks): bandwidth. If you simply prevented people from accessing the Internet, you'd simultaneously wipe out 99% of the infringing activity and stop the service providers from making a buck on contributing to that infringement.
I'm not against suing those that acutally that systematically infringe and make a profit at it, but now we're all going to suffer a very tedious and expensive legal morass that, ultimately will produce nothing but cost to taxpayers and further alientation of the consumer by the media industries. Everyone loses.
By the logic they applied in their decision, all software qualifies. A good example might be Windows, which quite specifically advertises their operatings systems products to be used for ripping video and music (case in point, they have a full page ad in the current Wired advising us that Windows XP is the ideal platform for ripping music, putting together and sharing your own mixes).
One could argue that MP3 players rely on an environment where people make unauthorized copies of their music collections onto computer and then the players -- they might even share the files!
Why aren't ISPs being sued en masse? If you buy the argument that SCOTUS did and the wording of their decision, it's only logical that the telecommunication and cable industries are selling the key ingredient in infringment (more so that P2P networks): bandwidth. If you simply prevented people from accessing the Internet, you'd simultaneously wipe out 99% of the infringing activity and stop the service providers from making a buck on contributing to that infringement.
I'm not against suing those that acutally that systematically infringe and make a profit at it, but now we're all going to suffer a very tedious and expensive legal morass that, ultimately will produce nothing but cost to taxpayers and further alientation of the consumer by the media industries. Everyone loses.
Say farewell to the high-tech industry. Say goodbye to Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Sun, HP, Dell, Cisco, Seagate, and on and on. You all make products that are used to violate copyrights. Whether it's a document or a photo or a sound file, anyone who owns anything protected by copyright now has the right to sue you till you're wallets are empty. And sue you they will. The courts are about to become inundated with lawsuits against technology providers of all stripes.
But fear not, China is waiting in the wings. China doesn't care about copyrights. As for the US, it is becoming more like the old Soviet Union every day: we have one party, one way of doing things, and now total control of information exchange.
This is a sad day, for it marks the end of the high-tech industry in this country.
You actually think this is going to stop anything? If anything its going to drive people to get encrypted decentralized P2P up and running even faster. RIAA and MPAA can't sue who they can't find.
Say farewell to the high-tech industry. Say goodbye to Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Adobe, Sun, HP, Dell, Cisco, Seagate, and on and on. You all make products that are used to violate copyrights. Whether it's a document or a photo or a sound file, anyone who owns anything protected by copyright now has the right to sue you till you're wallets are empty. And sue you they will. The courts are about to become inundated with lawsuits against technology providers of all stripes.
But fear not, China is waiting in the wings. China doesn't care about copyrights. As for the US, it is becoming more like the old Soviet Union every day: we have one party, one way of doing things, and now total control of information exchange.
This is a sad day, for it marks the end of the high-tech industry in this country.
You actually think this is going to stop anything? If anything its going to drive people to get encrypted decentralized P2P up and running even faster. RIAA and MPAA can't sue who they can't find.
If you had a brain in your head you should realize that first off there is a reason why Supreme Court justices hold their position for life. These guys don't get bribes and if they did there is a reason there are NINE SC justices. Secondly the justices are WELL balanced both from the repub and dem side of things. Third these people are DAMN good at handing down well thought out law. Fourth its call "eminent domain" and Target and Walmart don't have jack **** to say about it. The local government DOES. Now if the local gov is in Wallyworld's pocket that is a different matter.
What you are missing is that this was a full sweep. 9-0 in favor. I really want to read the rulings because there has to be some serious justification as to why EVERYONE sided with MGM.
I would suggest you do the same before you go off half-cocked.
If you had a brain in your head you should realize that first off there is a reason why Supreme Court justices hold their position for life. These guys don't get bribes and if they did there is a reason there are NINE SC justices. Secondly the justices are WELL balanced both from the repub and dem side of things. Third these people are DAMN good at handing down well thought out law. Fourth its call "eminent domain" and Target and Walmart don't have jack **** to say about it. The local government DOES. Now if the local gov is in Wallyworld's pocket that is a different matter.
What you are missing is that this was a full sweep. 9-0 in favor. I really want to read the rulings because there has to be some serious justification as to why EVERYONE sided with MGM.
I would suggest you do the same before you go off half-cocked.
Too many people are reading way to much into this.
The SC didnt do much else other than send the issue back to the courts with more specific instructions as to how they should consider the matter. Even then, I see ample wiggle room with which other companies will be able to get around the inevitable lawsuits.
None of this has any direct impact on the users, who are the ones trading the files in question.
The SC actually reaffirmed the Betamax decision as I see it. They were never going to endorse open copyright infringement. Allowing for hardware and software that can be used for infringement, so long as it isnt the sole purpose of its creation, and isnt actively allowed, is about as good as it was going to get.
Once the dust settles, this will be seen as a big deal about nothing.
As for everything else, the SC left ample room for incorporating the ten commandments into court design and displays, just not what some people wanted for reasons that have little to do with free speech.
And as for the eminent domain issue? It gave a wide accommodation but didnt change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasnt clear enough as it should have been, the move only ensures more court cases will push their way up to the court for another round in the future.
It is becoming annoying that since it became trendy to do so, everybody on the right side of things is declaring EVERYTHING any court does, as being a sign of an activist court, or the dire need for controls on the court.
It isnt that there are not, or havent ever been activist judges, or situations where the term is accurately applied. But nothing has so totally changed in the last few years to warrant this paranoid banter. People are too trigger happy and not thinking enough.
Too many people are reading way to much into this.
The SC didnt do much else other than send the issue back to the courts with more specific instructions as to how they should consider the matter. Even then, I see ample wiggle room with which other companies will be able to get around the inevitable lawsuits.
None of this has any direct impact on the users, who are the ones trading the files in question.
The SC actually reaffirmed the Betamax decision as I see it. They were never going to endorse open copyright infringement. Allowing for hardware and software that can be used for infringement, so long as it isnt the sole purpose of its creation, and isnt actively allowed, is about as good as it was going to get.
Once the dust settles, this will be seen as a big deal about nothing.
As for everything else, the SC left ample room for incorporating the ten commandments into court design and displays, just not what some people wanted for reasons that have little to do with free speech.
And as for the eminent domain issue? It gave a wide accommodation but didnt change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasnt clear enough as it should have been, the move only ensures more court cases will push their way up to the court for another round in the future.
It is becoming annoying that since it became trendy to do so, everybody on the right side of things is declaring EVERYTHING any court does, as being a sign of an activist court, or the dire need for controls on the court.
It isnt that there are not, or havent ever been activist judges, or situations where the term is accurately applied. But nothing has so totally changed in the last few years to warrant this paranoid banter. People are too trigger happy and not thinking enough.
As a paying customer, this sounds good to me. I can't believe the number of thieves out there who feel entitled to their stolen warez... mind boggling.
Well be prepared to pay more for your legally obtained goods in the future since companies can no longer save money on bandwidth by using file swapping networks.
The price of software and media will go up and your cheering?
As a paying customer, this sounds good to me. I can't believe the number of thieves out there who feel entitled to their stolen warez... mind boggling.
Well be prepared to pay more for your legally obtained goods in the future since companies can no longer save money on bandwidth by using file swapping networks.
The price of software and media will go up and your cheering?
Read the opinion: <<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf</a>>
Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CDs, DVDs, any type portable storage device which ~copies~ or ~could~ copy something of a copyrighted nature just became illegal if the intent to sell the device is in fact to copy something which could be copyright protected.
Some are writing already that places like iTunes will see a boon because they license the songs. Thats true, they do, but the device itself is non-conforming and I would think the lawyers are drooling right now at the chance to get a dime for every floopy disk, every flash drive, even every iPod made.
Welcome 1905 technology just got tossed back to the industrial age.
Read the opinion: <<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf</a>>
Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CDs, DVDs, any type portable storage device which ~copies~ or ~could~ copy something of a copyrighted nature just became illegal if the intent to sell the device is in fact to copy something which could be copyright protected.
Some are writing already that places like iTunes will see a boon because they license the songs. Thats true, they do, but the device itself is non-conforming and I would think the lawyers are drooling right now at the chance to get a dime for every floopy disk, every flash drive, even every iPod made.
Welcome 1905 technology just got tossed back to the industrial age.
This is not "goodbye high-tech." This is not "Sony Betamax overturned." This is not "sellout to the largest companies."
Please read the ruling: "We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement,"
This means that someone has to make the software with the CLEAR INTENT of promoting copyright infringement. That is way different then the Sony Betamax ruling which allowed someone to make a copy legally. If I'm not mistaken, it is still legal to make a personal backup copy of a DVD or CD or VHS tape. It is still legal to make a copy of a CD for personal use in your car. It is still legal to record a TV show in order to view it later.
I think it may even be legal to make a copy of a CD for someone else in your household. Does anyone know the specifics of what is legal?
What is not legal is to give away or receive a copyrighted movie, album, or song to people outside your household.
Ripping apps == doomed even if legal under "fair use"
The issue is this: Windows and Apple include programs to "RIP" audio discs and advertize it as such. This clearly is "copyright infringement" to the record industry since they don't care about fair use rights and it is openly marketed by the two companies. I would expect 10.5 and Longhorn to no longer allow you to "rip" cd's even though it's legal under old fair use.
Give the media conglomerates an inch and they WILL sue a mile.
The DMCA made it illegal to break any encryption, so that means making backups of your movies on DVD is now illegal.
The reason everyone is upset is because fair-use is being eroded to no ones benefit. The stupid media companies think this helps them, but they are too blind and dense to realize they shot off their foot years ago.
Contrary to the plethora of unenlightened opinions tossed around in CNets News.com discussion forums, the court did not rule that peer-to-peer (P2P) software was illegal. Nor did it rule that any software that can be used to illegally copy files is illegal. This means that legitimate P2P software, web browsers, instant messaging clients, and other collaboration and communication tools are still perfectly legal.
Maybe you may want to take a look at what the real issue is in this little piece by Larry Lessig, originally published at the current issue of MIT's Tachnology Review publication.
Manage updates with the Download App
EVERYTHING in tech can be used to infringe copyright. So next, Adobe and JASC will be sued for copyright infringement cause you can edit existing pictures, then the OS companies because they have a browser that lets you save files from the net via HTTP or FTP because you could copy something infringing.
This court has gone amok. Then they say the 10 commandments cannot be displayed in a court due to separation of church and state. HOWEVER--if you are called to testify, you are FORCED, UNDER LAW and threat of CONTEMPT to "swear to God" on a Bible. Where is the rationale?
when you testify. Today, the judge reminds you
that you ar obligated to tell the truth or face
a charge of perjury.
EVERYTHING in tech can be used to infringe copyright. So next, Adobe and JASC will be sued for copyright infringement cause you can edit existing pictures, then the OS companies because they have a browser that lets you save files from the net via HTTP or FTP because you could copy something infringing.
This court has gone amok. Then they say the 10 commandments cannot be displayed in a court due to separation of church and state. HOWEVER--if you are called to testify, you are FORCED, UNDER LAW and threat of CONTEMPT to "swear to God" on a Bible. Where is the rationale?
when you testify. Today, the judge reminds you
that you ar obligated to tell the truth or face
a charge of perjury.
Are not ISP's 3rd party instruments? A user dials in (or simply connected if you are one of the lucky broadband users out there), and transfers anything, attachments in emails, ftp's, etc. That makes the ISP the middle guy doesn't it?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd</a>
Are not ISP's 3rd party instruments? A user dials in (or simply connected if you are one of the lucky broadband users out there), and transfers anything, attachments in emails, ftp's, etc. That makes the ISP the middle guy doesn't it?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd</a>
software qualifies. A good example might be
Windows, which quite specifically advertises
their operatings systems products to be used for
ripping video and music (case in point, they
have a full page ad in the current Wired
advising us that Windows XP is the ideal
platform for ripping music, putting together and
sharing your own mixes).
One could argue that MP3 players rely on an
environment where people make unauthorized
copies of their music collections onto computer
and then the players -- they might even share
the files!
Why aren't ISPs being sued en masse? If you buy
the argument that SCOTUS did and the wording of
their decision, it's only logical that the
telecommunication and cable industries are
selling the key ingredient in infringment (more
so that P2P networks): bandwidth. If you simply
prevented people from accessing the Internet,
you'd simultaneously wipe out 99% of the
infringing activity and stop the service
providers from making a buck on contributing to
that infringement.
I'm not against suing those that acutally that
systematically infringe and make a profit at it,
but now we're all going to suffer a very tedious
and expensive legal morass that, ultimately will
produce nothing but cost to taxpayers and
further alientation of the consumer by the media
industries. Everyone loses.
software qualifies. A good example might be
Windows, which quite specifically advertises
their operatings systems products to be used for
ripping video and music (case in point, they
have a full page ad in the current Wired
advising us that Windows XP is the ideal
platform for ripping music, putting together and
sharing your own mixes).
One could argue that MP3 players rely on an
environment where people make unauthorized
copies of their music collections onto computer
and then the players -- they might even share
the files!
Why aren't ISPs being sued en masse? If you buy
the argument that SCOTUS did and the wording of
their decision, it's only logical that the
telecommunication and cable industries are
selling the key ingredient in infringment (more
so that P2P networks): bandwidth. If you simply
prevented people from accessing the Internet,
you'd simultaneously wipe out 99% of the
infringing activity and stop the service
providers from making a buck on contributing to
that infringement.
I'm not against suing those that acutally that
systematically infringe and make a profit at it,
but now we're all going to suffer a very tedious
and expensive legal morass that, ultimately will
produce nothing but cost to taxpayers and
further alientation of the consumer by the media
industries. Everyone loses.
But fear not, China is waiting in the wings. China doesn't care about copyrights. As for the US, it is becoming more like the old Soviet Union every day: we have one party, one way of doing things, and now total control of information exchange.
This is a sad day, for it marks the end of the high-tech industry in this country.
But fear not, China is waiting in the wings. China doesn't care about copyrights. As for the US, it is becoming more like the old Soviet Union every day: we have one party, one way of doing things, and now total control of information exchange.
This is a sad day, for it marks the end of the high-tech industry in this country.
What you are missing is that this was a full sweep. 9-0 in favor. I really want to read the rulings because there has to be some serious justification as to why EVERYONE sided with MGM.
I would suggest you do the same before you go off half-cocked.
There are 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. That isn't WELL balanced.
What you are missing is that this was a full sweep. 9-0 in favor. I really want to read the rulings because there has to be some serious justification as to why EVERYONE sided with MGM.
I would suggest you do the same before you go off half-cocked.
There are 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. That isn't WELL balanced.
The SC didnt do much else other than send the issue back to the courts with more specific instructions as to how they should consider the matter. Even then, I see ample wiggle room with which other companies will be able to get around the inevitable lawsuits.
None of this has any direct impact on the users, who are the ones trading the files in question.
The SC actually reaffirmed the Betamax decision as I see it. They were never going to endorse open copyright infringement. Allowing for hardware and software that can be used for infringement, so long as it isnt the sole purpose of its creation, and isnt actively allowed, is about as good as it was going to get.
Once the dust settles, this will be seen as a big deal about nothing.
As for everything else, the SC left ample room for incorporating the ten commandments into court design and displays, just not what some people wanted for reasons that have little to do with free speech.
And as for the eminent domain issue? It gave a wide accommodation but didnt change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasnt clear enough as it should have been, the move only ensures more court cases will push their way up to the court for another round in the future.
It is becoming annoying that since it became trendy to do so, everybody on the right side of things is declaring EVERYTHING any court does, as being a sign of an activist court, or the dire need for controls on the court.
It isnt that there are not, or havent ever been activist judges, or situations where the term is accurately applied. But nothing has so totally changed in the last few years to warrant this paranoid banter. People are too trigger happy and not thinking enough.
NWLB
****
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nwlb.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.nwlb.net</a>
The SC didnt do much else other than send the issue back to the courts with more specific instructions as to how they should consider the matter. Even then, I see ample wiggle room with which other companies will be able to get around the inevitable lawsuits.
None of this has any direct impact on the users, who are the ones trading the files in question.
The SC actually reaffirmed the Betamax decision as I see it. They were never going to endorse open copyright infringement. Allowing for hardware and software that can be used for infringement, so long as it isnt the sole purpose of its creation, and isnt actively allowed, is about as good as it was going to get.
Once the dust settles, this will be seen as a big deal about nothing.
As for everything else, the SC left ample room for incorporating the ten commandments into court design and displays, just not what some people wanted for reasons that have little to do with free speech.
And as for the eminent domain issue? It gave a wide accommodation but didnt change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasnt clear enough as it should have been, the move only ensures more court cases will push their way up to the court for another round in the future.
It is becoming annoying that since it became trendy to do so, everybody on the right side of things is declaring EVERYTHING any court does, as being a sign of an activist court, or the dire need for controls on the court.
It isnt that there are not, or havent ever been activist judges, or situations where the term is accurately applied. But nothing has so totally changed in the last few years to warrant this paranoid banter. People are too trigger happy and not thinking enough.
NWLB
****
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nwlb.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.nwlb.net</a>
number of thieves out there who feel entitled to their stolen
warez... mind boggling.
The price of software and media will go up and your cheering?
number of thieves out there who feel entitled to their stolen
warez... mind boggling.
The price of software and media will go up and your cheering?
<<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf</a>>
Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CDs, DVDs, any type portable storage device which ~copies~ or ~could~ copy something of a copyrighted nature just became illegal if the intent to sell the device is in fact to copy something which could be copyright protected.
Some are writing already that places like iTunes will see a boon because they license the songs. Thats true, they do, but the device itself is non-conforming and I would think the lawyers are drooling right now at the chance to get a dime for every floopy disk, every flash drive, even every iPod made.
Welcome 1905 technology just got tossed back to the industrial age.
<<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf</a>>
Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CDs, DVDs, any type portable storage device which ~copies~ or ~could~ copy something of a copyrighted nature just became illegal if the intent to sell the device is in fact to copy something which could be copyright protected.
Some are writing already that places like iTunes will see a boon because they license the songs. Thats true, they do, but the device itself is non-conforming and I would think the lawyers are drooling right now at the chance to get a dime for every floopy disk, every flash drive, even every iPod made.
Welcome 1905 technology just got tossed back to the industrial age.
This is not "Sony Betamax overturned."
This is not "sellout to the largest companies."
Please read the ruling:
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement,"
This means that someone has to make the software with the CLEAR INTENT of promoting copyright infringement. That is way different then the Sony Betamax ruling which allowed someone to make a copy legally. If I'm not mistaken, it is still legal to make a personal backup copy of a DVD or CD or VHS tape. It is still legal to make a copy of a CD for personal use in your car. It is still legal to record a TV show in order to view it later.
I think it may even be legal to make a copy of a CD for someone else in your household. Does anyone know the specifics of what is legal?
What is not legal is to give away or receive a copyrighted movie, album, or song to people outside your household.
Give the media conglomerates an inch and they WILL sue a mile.
The reason everyone is upset is because fair-use is being eroded to no ones benefit. The stupid media companies think this helps them, but they are too blind and dense to realize they shot off their foot years ago.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_people.asp?p=0" target="_newWindow">http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_people.asp?p=0</a>