Comments on: Supreme Court rules against file swapping

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

[Earl]

One of the best statements made.

The GOVERMENT broke away from the people a long time ago.
Big company's are killing the middle man whitch is the backbont of this nation,& allways has been.
Once that happens you'll only have the rich, & the poor, WHO will feed them then?
Why do you think the Rich are moveing out of the country?

[Earl]

One of the best statements made.

The GOVERMENT broke away from the people a long time ago.
Big company's are killing the middle man whitch is the backbont of this nation,& allways has been.
Once that happens you'll only have the rich, & the poor, WHO will feed them then?
Why do you think the Rich are moveing out of the country?

[Earl]

One of the best statements made.

The GOVERMENT broke away from the people a long time ago.
Big company's are killing the middle man whitch is the backbone of this nation,& allways has been.
Once that happens you'll only have the rich, & the poor, WHO will feed them then?
Why do you think the Rich are moveing out of the country?

[Earl]

One of the best statements made.

The GOVERMENT broke away from the people a long time ago.
Big company's are killing the middle man whitch is the backbone of this nation,& allways has been.
Once that happens you'll only have the rich, & the poor, WHO will feed them then?
Why do you think the Rich are moveing out of the country?

Re: The Supreme Court ruling about music

This just proves that money talks and BS walks nothing more nothing less. A bunch of old farts making rules that in ten years will be challenged and reversed like many others. In any case it won't make a difference. There will always be a way around the law and in the end all that will have been accomplished is more frustration for the R.I.A.A. You can't win so give it up already.

Re: The Supreme Court ruling about music

This just proves that money talks and BS walks nothing more nothing less. A bunch of old farts making rules that in ten years will be challenged and reversed like many others. In any case it won't make a difference. There will always be a way around the law and in the end all that will have been accomplished is more frustration for the R.I.A.A. You can't win so give it up already.

[Earl]

Good

What you said is very true. How many times do you see the same movie on tv, before they show you new one?
As far as records are concered,I have 1000's bought & paid for,& if I let freind barrow one am I going to be illegal in doing so under this new law?

[Scott W]

actually yes

if you read the print around the edge of the CD then you will find the copyright (at least in the UK anyway). it is never followed up because it is too small scale to harm the music industry. this differs from file-sharing on the internet as the product is available for millions of people to download illegally.

[amleviathan]

Hmm..

Going in that direction, theoretically, if I let my friend borrow a CD, and he copies it without me knowing about it, I could be held responsible.

People have always shared things...maybe I'm talking too small-scale to be relevant in this case, but think about it. Suppose, just theoretically, I put a file up on a P2P network and a few thousand people download it. "That's wrong." Suppose I had a few thousand friends that I let borrow the CD, or something. Would that be wrong, too? Who draws the line, and where?

[Earl]

Good

What you said is very true. How many times do you see the same movie on tv, before they show you new one?
As far as records are concered,I have 1000's bought & paid for,& if I let freind barrow one am I going to be illegal in doing so under this new law?

[Scott W]

actually yes

if you read the print around the edge of the CD then you will find the copyright (at least in the UK anyway). it is never followed up because it is too small scale to harm the music industry. this differs from file-sharing on the internet as the product is available for millions of people to download illegally.

[amleviathan]

Hmm..

Going in that direction, theoretically, if I let my friend borrow a CD, and he copies it without me knowing about it, I could be held responsible.

People have always shared things...maybe I'm talking too small-scale to be relevant in this case, but think about it. Suppose, just theoretically, I put a file up on a P2P network and a few thousand people download it. "That's wrong." Suppose I had a few thousand friends that I let borrow the CD, or something. Would that be wrong, too? Who draws the line, and where?

[Sam Papelbon]

this ruling is good

and it has nothing to do with file-sharing. it's about ethical advertising. it's the same as saying a gun-maker can't have commercials saying 'use our guns to commit murder!'

this ruling actually does little more than give p2p companies a loophole. advertise your software for legal uses (sharing linux distros, homemade files, etc) and they are perfectly safe.

just so long as they don't say 'use grokster to download the latest eminem album!', that's what this ruling outlaws. and if a p2p company is so dumb to have a slogan like that, then they deserve to be sued. call it the stupid-tax

[William Squire]

Excellent Analysis

Although I have tried, it is difficult to accurately capture the meaning of this ruling in as concise a form as you have.

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

[Sam Papelbon]

this ruling is good

and it has nothing to do with file-sharing. it's about ethical advertising. it's the same as saying a gun-maker can't have commercials saying 'use our guns to commit murder!'

this ruling actually does little more than give p2p companies a loophole. advertise your software for legal uses (sharing linux distros, homemade files, etc) and they are perfectly safe.

just so long as they don't say 'use grokster to download the latest eminem album!', that's what this ruling outlaws. and if a p2p company is so dumb to have a slogan like that, then they deserve to be sued. call it the stupid-tax

[William Squire]

Excellent Analysis

Although I have tried, it is difficult to accurately capture the meaning of this ruling in as concise a form as you have.

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

[Earl]

Glad to someone think' s right

I learned a long time people learn more from what they see,& hear than what they read.
Today about the only thing you see in movies is crime,sex,& violace.

[Earl]

Glad to someone think' s right

I learned a long time people learn more from what they see,& hear than what they read.
Today about the only thing you see in movies is crime,sex,& violace.

[rdean]

Look at the law, not your emotions...

If someone sells you a gun that makes it easier to kill people, knowing full well that the overwhelming reason they're making money is because people are buying the gun to commit murder, that someone should be held as an accessory to murder.

Grokster / StreamCast are not good standards-bearers for P2P. Their actions made them liable, not their technology. When BitTorrent becomes a target, it will be a better test case -- its use to distribute Linux ISOs is compelling.

[amleviathan]

Oh, come on

The vast majority of people who buy guns are not doing it for the purpose of killing anyone. If they aren't for hunting, it's for sport, or to keep in the house in case of an emergency (one in which self-defense would be necessary). My friend and his family use them for target practice, as a hobby and whatnot. They're obsessed with the safety and not hurting anyone. I'm rambling. The point is, people can use almost anything to kill someone, and I don't know of any manufacturers who produce their products for the sole purpose of seeing them used for murder.

[rdean]

Look at the law, not your emotions...

If someone sells you a gun that makes it easier to kill people, knowing full well that the overwhelming reason they're making money is because people are buying the gun to commit murder, that someone should be held as an accessory to murder.

Grokster / StreamCast are not good standards-bearers for P2P. Their actions made them liable, not their technology. When BitTorrent becomes a target, it will be a better test case -- its use to distribute Linux ISOs is compelling.

[amleviathan]

Oh, come on

The vast majority of people who buy guns are not doing it for the purpose of killing anyone. If they aren't for hunting, it's for sport, or to keep in the house in case of an emergency (one in which self-defense would be necessary). My friend and his family use them for target practice, as a hobby and whatnot. They're obsessed with the safety and not hurting anyone. I'm rambling. The point is, people can use almost anything to kill someone, and I don't know of any manufacturers who produce their products for the sole purpose of seeing them used for murder.

Protect ISP's, shoot P2P networks?

If I'm not mistaken, it was agreed that the DMCA protects ISP's from the copyright infringement that occurs on their networks, so how is this different for P2P networks, which could really be thought of as an ISP because they provide an internet service! If such a ruling is in place, then shouldn't ISP's also be held accountable for crimes commited using their internet connections? If someone steals your toolbox and uses one of the tools to kill someone, should you be held accountable for murder?

Protect ISP's, shoot P2P networks?

If I'm not mistaken, it was agreed that the DMCA protects ISP's from the copyright infringement that occurs on their networks, so how is this different for P2P networks, which could really be thought of as an ISP because they provide an internet service! If such a ruling is in place, then shouldn't ISP's also be held accountable for crimes commited using their internet connections? If someone steals your toolbox and uses one of the tools to kill someone, should you be held accountable for murder?

[techoguy]

Perhaps...

I say that if they are so dawn scared of any body copying their materials then they should NOT MAKE nor PRODUCE any. Go into some other professions or businesses. That should resolve that problem, no materials means no copying and no stealing. An ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure. LOL

[techoguy]

Perhaps...

I say that if they are so dawn scared of any body copying their materials then they should NOT MAKE nor PRODUCE any. Go into some other professions or businesses. That should resolve that problem, no materials means no copying and no stealing. An ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure. LOL

[System Tyrant]

TIme to SUE, Ye Haw.

Well since companies can be held responsable for their actions I am going to sue Microsoft for all the viruses and hacks that hit my system. Why? Because they are now held responsible for the actions of their users.

Our government has lost their minds. I think it's time to evict the whole damn lot of them. I have read a few post that say if you don't like America go live in another country. Well if we don't act now we are going to be that other country. I am not a gun carrying fanatic yet, but if this keeps up I am goning to sell everything I own and move to the woods with a stock pile of ammunition and weapons.

My only question is when do we burn the constitution and the bill of rights and let the dictator take over? Happy last Fourth of July.

[Sam Papelbon]

you're missing the point

they are only responsible for their users illegal activities if they promote the use of their software for these activities. any p2p company with half a brain has already removed any hints of illegal activity and most, if not all, have disclaimers telling their users not to use their programs for illegal purposes.

such companies can't be touched based on this ruling.

[Bill Dautrive]

I wish

No one in the software industry takes responsibility for their creation.

Programmers don't have to be licensed or anything to produce medical or financial software. But you have to be licensed to cut hair.

Imagine if the architectural world worked like software. "I am not responsible that my building collapsed due to poor structural design". "I am not responsible for that bridge collapsing because I couldn't forsee more then 2 cars being on it at once."

Off topic I know, but as a programmer with ethicals and a sense of responsibility, I find much of the software industry standards and practices to be repugnunt.

[System Tyrant]

TIme to SUE, Ye Haw.

Well since companies can be held responsable for their actions I am going to sue Microsoft for all the viruses and hacks that hit my system. Why? Because they are now held responsible for the actions of their users.

Our government has lost their minds. I think it's time to evict the whole damn lot of them. I have read a few post that say if you don't like America go live in another country. Well if we don't act now we are going to be that other country. I am not a gun carrying fanatic yet, but if this keeps up I am goning to sell everything I own and move to the woods with a stock pile of ammunition and weapons.

My only question is when do we burn the constitution and the bill of rights and let the dictator take over? Happy last Fourth of July.

[Sam Papelbon]

you're missing the point

they are only responsible for their users illegal activities if they promote the use of their software for these activities. any p2p company with half a brain has already removed any hints of illegal activity and most, if not all, have disclaimers telling their users not to use their programs for illegal purposes.

such companies can't be touched based on this ruling.

[Bill Dautrive]

I wish

No one in the software industry takes responsibility for their creation.

Programmers don't have to be licensed or anything to produce medical or financial software. But you have to be licensed to cut hair.

Imagine if the architectural world worked like software. "I am not responsible that my building collapsed due to poor structural design". "I am not responsible for that bridge collapsing because I couldn't forsee more then 2 cars being on it at once."

Off topic I know, but as a programmer with ethicals and a sense of responsibility, I find much of the software industry standards and practices to be repugnunt.