Comments on: Supreme Court rules against file swapping

In unanimous decision, justices say Grokster and others could be held responsible for widespread copyright infringement.

Right on

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.

[Fray9]

Hmm..

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?

Right on

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.

[Fray9]

Hmm..

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?

[screw you]

Back to the Dark Ages?

Read the opinion:
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf>

Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CD?s, DVD?s, 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. That?s 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.

[screw you]

Back to the Dark Ages?

Read the opinion:
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf>

Seems to me, after reading the ruling, that tapes, TiVo, CD?s, DVD?s, 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. That?s 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.

I can't believe these reponses!

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.

[Anon-Y-mous]

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.

[Bill Dautrive]

nope

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.

member of household?

I am of the family of man. that makes all people my family.... therefor I can share with anybody...

[William Squire]

Ignorant Replies, I agree

Contrary to the plethora of unenlightened opinions tossed around in CNet?s 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.

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

[Mario Nogueira]

Oh, really?

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.

http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_people.asp?p=0

I can't believe these reponses!

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.

[Anon-Y-mous]

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.

[Bill Dautrive]

nope

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.

member of household?

I am of the family of man. that makes all people my family.... therefor I can share with anybody...

[William Squire]

Ignorant Replies, I agree

Contrary to the plethora of unenlightened opinions tossed around in CNet?s 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.

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

[Mario Nogueira]

Oh, really?

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.

http://www.techreview.com/articles/05/06/issue/feature_people.asp?p=0

[jamie.p.walsh]

How about considering COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, and PATENT REFORM!!!

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of manipulation in the favor of protecting copyrighted material. However, no one in congress seems to be suggesting that there may be some issues that need to be examined in the copyright/tm/patent process. For instance, not one single solitary word on FAIR USE!!!!!

HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU NOT MENTION THAT IN THIS CASE?????

They did address Fair Use

From the article:

{said Gigi Sohn, president of Washington D.C.-based Public Knowledge. "That is why their decision today re-emphasized and preserved the core principle of (the Betamax decision)--that technology alone can't be the basis of copyright liability--and focused clearly and unambiguously on whether defendants engaged in intentional acts of encouraging infringement."}

Why do so many people think that the court threw out the Betamax decision? They clearly did not.

I agree

I totally agree, The Patent and (c) laws need to be changed. These laws where made years ago to protect people that took considerable time to manufacture and put a product to market. Today this process takes much less time and leaves years of protection to the major companies. For example drug patents should NEVER exceed five years. Some of these money grubbing companies are holding lifesaving drugs for years and charging lots of $$$ because they are "protected. It's time to end the greed and allow public domain quicker. Some of these laws only serve to stifle progress and make larger corps richer.

[jamie.p.walsh]

How about considering COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, and PATENT REFORM!!!

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of manipulation in the favor of protecting copyrighted material. However, no one in congress seems to be suggesting that there may be some issues that need to be examined in the copyright/tm/patent process. For instance, not one single solitary word on FAIR USE!!!!!

HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU NOT MENTION THAT IN THIS CASE?????

They did address Fair Use

From the article:

{said Gigi Sohn, president of Washington D.C.-based Public Knowledge. "That is why their decision today re-emphasized and preserved the core principle of (the Betamax decision)--that technology alone can't be the basis of copyright liability--and focused clearly and unambiguously on whether defendants engaged in intentional acts of encouraging infringement."}

Why do so many people think that the court threw out the Betamax decision? They clearly did not.

I agree

I totally agree, The Patent and (c) laws need to be changed. These laws where made years ago to protect people that took considerable time to manufacture and put a product to market. Today this process takes much less time and leaves years of protection to the major companies. For example drug patents should NEVER exceed five years. Some of these money grubbing companies are holding lifesaving drugs for years and charging lots of $$$ because they are "protected. It's time to end the greed and allow public domain quicker. Some of these laws only serve to stifle progress and make larger corps richer.

[Willie Winkie]

Meaningless

So the Supreme Court has finally delivered its verdict on the ?landmark? MGM vs. Grockster copyright infringement case. Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but since when have legal rulings on such trivial B.S. garnered so much public attention and feedback? The G.W. Bush dictatorship should be of far greater concern given the illegitimacy of its actions. But I digress. It astonishes me that people are acting as though this ruling is actually going to cause the free transfer of knowledge and ideas (that's what digital files are) to come to an end. The fact is that information is one of the most portable commodities known to mankind. Much of the growth of civilization over the last 2000 years has been based upon the free exchange of knowledge and information. Attempts to preserve markets through legislation ultimately fall prey to smart people who develop better mouse traps. The big difference today is that the Internet allows smart people to collaborate and respond to such feeble attempts at legislation so rapidly as to render the decisions obsolete before the ink dries on the legal docket. Plug one information hole and two more pop up. And so it goes. The market forces in the economy are revaluing digital information and content in a manner consistent with the way the world market values and revalues the currency of nations. Movies and music are rightfully being devalued to the level of the Mexican peso as people come to the conclusion that the organizations producing this particular ?currency? are not exactly worthy of the undue enrichment they have enjoyed in the past. This is a normal function of the economy. One technology disrupts another. One market grows as another shrinks and everyone feels they entitled to some kind of legislating protection.

[Fray9]

The problem is

The problem though is that these companies that cant adapt to the changing technology keep making overly broad laws in a vain attempt to stop illegal activity, and in the process, they are making even common everyday things illegal and everyone criminals.

You dont like what a company is doing and say something they dont like, they can get you thrown in jail.. do they have to know what you've done wrong? Not really they know your guilty of something since they've finally realized its easier to make it illegal to exercise your rights than it is to remove those rights.

Just look at fair use and the DMCA for an example.

[Willie Winkie]

Meaningless

So the Supreme Court has finally delivered its verdict on the ?landmark? MGM vs. Grockster copyright infringement case. Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but since when have legal rulings on such trivial B.S. garnered so much public attention and feedback? The G.W. Bush dictatorship should be of far greater concern given the illegitimacy of its actions. But I digress. It astonishes me that people are acting as though this ruling is actually going to cause the free transfer of knowledge and ideas (that's what digital files are) to come to an end. The fact is that information is one of the most portable commodities known to mankind. Much of the growth of civilization over the last 2000 years has been based upon the free exchange of knowledge and information. Attempts to preserve markets through legislation ultimately fall prey to smart people who develop better mouse traps. The big difference today is that the Internet allows smart people to collaborate and respond to such feeble attempts at legislation so rapidly as to render the decisions obsolete before the ink dries on the legal docket. Plug one information hole and two more pop up. And so it goes. The market forces in the economy are revaluing digital information and content in a manner consistent with the way the world market values and revalues the currency of nations. Movies and music are rightfully being devalued to the level of the Mexican peso as people come to the conclusion that the organizations producing this particular ?currency? are not exactly worthy of the undue enrichment they have enjoyed in the past. This is a normal function of the economy. One technology disrupts another. One market grows as another shrinks and everyone feels they entitled to some kind of legislating protection.

[Fray9]

The problem is

The problem though is that these companies that cant adapt to the changing technology keep making overly broad laws in a vain attempt to stop illegal activity, and in the process, they are making even common everyday things illegal and everyone criminals.

You dont like what a company is doing and say something they dont like, they can get you thrown in jail.. do they have to know what you've done wrong? Not really they know your guilty of something since they've finally realized its easier to make it illegal to exercise your rights than it is to remove those rights.

Just look at fair use and the DMCA for an example.

[Bill Dautrive]

Typically shortsighted

These exact same people that preached doom when recordable audio/video tapes came out, and when VCR's became popular are the same ones that made billions for it.

Today they are at it again. They had the opportunity to embrace this and profit, but in normal fashion they can't see past their noses, and have squandered the opportunity to profit.

Not surprising since these are the same folks who blame file sharing on decreasing sales, when nearly everything they release(movies or music) is not worth buying.

[Bill Dautrive]

Typically shortsighted

These exact same people that preached doom when recordable audio/video tapes came out, and when VCR's became popular are the same ones that made billions for it.

Today they are at it again. They had the opportunity to embrace this and profit, but in normal fashion they can't see past their noses, and have squandered the opportunity to profit.

Not surprising since these are the same folks who blame file sharing on decreasing sales, when nearly everything they release(movies or music) is not worth buying.

won't this affect the manufacturers of CD and DVD burning components?

surely this ruling will entitle record companies and artists to litigate against the major manufacturers of CD and DVD burning hardware? they will be indefensible against the charge that they have not pre-empted and prevented the use of their devices for copying intellectual property belonging to others?

[Fray9]

Yep

Yeah pretty much.

Unless they pull a Microsoft and start implementing an encryption scheme then tell the media companies about it.. and change the scheme before the media companies can start to use it. Rinse and repeat.

Then they can say they were trying to prevent piracy with their standards, and its not their fault if the media companys didnt use it.

[Willie Winkie]

Would you buy a crippled DVD burner?

We'll soon see. The real holdup in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray battle is how you will be prevented from using it in any way that would be meaningfull.

Here's a prediction: some time in the near future it will be mandated that all shower stalls be fitted with an internet enabled microphone linked to the homeowner's bank account. Whenever you sing a copyrighted song in the shower your account is automatically debited.

[Chung Leong]

Yes, if you listening to the doom-saying fools

The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that it has not revised the Betamax precedence. The reasoning behind that ruling still holds. What constituted fair use before is going to remain fair use. All this noise you hear about "chilling effects" and what-not is just an attempt by defenders of file swapping to obscure the issue. As evident by the unanimous decision, the justices saw through this smoke screen.

There is no fair use dimension to the case at all. File swapping is always copyright infringement. The Court recognized--correctly--that Grokster's primary use is trading copyrighted material. The fact that there exists plausible non-fringement use is an insufficient defence when it improbable. People simply would not use Grokster to find research papers or songs by unknown bands when there is a far superior mean--namely the web.

What the Court said today is that theft is theft and you will be hold accountable if you're an knowing accessory to it.

won't this affect the manufacturers of CD and DVD burning components?

surely this ruling will entitle record companies and artists to litigate against the major manufacturers of CD and DVD burning hardware? they will be indefensible against the charge that they have not pre-empted and prevented the use of their devices for copying intellectual property belonging to others?

[Fray9]

Yep

Yeah pretty much.

Unless they pull a Microsoft and start implementing an encryption scheme then tell the media companies about it.. and change the scheme before the media companies can start to use it. Rinse and repeat.

Then they can say they were trying to prevent piracy with their standards, and its not their fault if the media companys didnt use it.

[Willie Winkie]

Would you buy a crippled DVD burner?

We'll soon see. The real holdup in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray battle is how you will be prevented from using it in any way that would be meaningfull.

Here's a prediction: some time in the near future it will be mandated that all shower stalls be fitted with an internet enabled microphone linked to the homeowner's bank account. Whenever you sing a copyrighted song in the shower your account is automatically debited.

[Chung Leong]

Yes, if you listening to the doom-saying fools

The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that it has not revised the Betamax precedence. The reasoning behind that ruling still holds. What constituted fair use before is going to remain fair use. All this noise you hear about "chilling effects" and what-not is just an attempt by defenders of file swapping to obscure the issue. As evident by the unanimous decision, the justices saw through this smoke screen.

There is no fair use dimension to the case at all. File swapping is always copyright infringement. The Court recognized--correctly--that Grokster's primary use is trading copyrighted material. The fact that there exists plausible non-fringement use is an insufficient defence when it improbable. People simply would not use Grokster to find research papers or songs by unknown bands when there is a far superior mean--namely the web.

What the Court said today is that theft is theft and you will be hold accountable if you're an knowing accessory to it.

So should we hold music industry liable...

...for all violence on streets,for crime,for hatred etc since many artist they promote promote that in their work???
How about holding Hollywood liable for violance in their movies?

[Earl]

Glad to see someone think's right.

I learned a long time ago that people learn more from what they see,& hear than do from reading.
About the only thing you see in movies,(tv) is crime,sex,&violence.

So should we hold music industry liable...

...for all violence on streets,for crime,for hatred etc since many artist they promote promote that in their work???
How about holding Hollywood liable for violance in their movies?

[Earl]

Glad to see someone think's right.

I learned a long time ago that people learn more from what they see,& hear than do from reading.
About the only thing you see in movies,(tv) is crime,sex,&violence.

[Earl]

That's just it!

What is free anymore.

[Earl]

That's just it!

What is free anymore.

[Earl]

Very Good Statment

However you left you out a thing ,or two.
First being able to coumacate with someone here & there was the reason computers were built.
Second if I wish to sent something to someone,or(a 100 or two) that should be my right,(music,pictures,etc.)
Also, the picture,&recored company's should be paying for this, because it is spreading,(or advertizing) there work for them.
When I buy a record I have paid for the copyright,& it is mine to do as I wish, let freinds make a copy if they wish>

[Earl]

Very Good Statment

However you left you out a thing ,or two.
First being able to coumacate with someone here & there was the reason computers were built.
Second if I wish to sent something to someone,or(a 100 or two) that should be my right,(music,pictures,etc.)
Also, the picture,&recored company's should be paying for this, because it is spreading,(or advertizing) there work for them.
When I buy a record I have paid for the copyright,& it is mine to do as I wish, let freinds make a copy if they wish>