Comments on: Supreme Court rules against file swapping
In unanimous decision, justices say Grokster and others could be held responsible for widespread copyright infringement.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Apple to buy Quattro Wireless for $275 million
January 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST
- 'Kama Sutra' most pirated ebook of 2009
January 4, 2010 7:20 PM PST
- Forrester: 5 keys for application development in 2010
January 4, 2010 7:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
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?
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd
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?
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b881fb6-5ae6-4c6e-b15d-f928ead7dbfd
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 didn?t 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 isn?t the sole purpose of its creation, and isn?t 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 didn?t change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasn?t 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 isn?t that there are not, or haven?t 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
****
http://www.nwlb.net
- Over reacting.
- by NWLB June 27, 2005 10:13 AM PDT
- Too many people are reading way to much into this.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (213 Comments)The SC didn?t 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 isn?t the sole purpose of its creation, and isn?t 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 didn?t change the ability of people to challenge such moves with ballot initiatives. If it wasn?t 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 isn?t that there are not, or haven?t 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
****
http://www.nwlb.net