Comments on: Supreme Court rules against file swapping

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

Does the same go for weapons manufacturers?

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of
KILLING PEOPLE its use to CAUSE DEATH, as shown by clear
expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster VIOLENCE/
DEATH, is liable for the resulting acts of MURDER.

So all gun, bullet and knife manufacturers should be held
responsible for all law breaking activities perpetrated by their
products.

Is it the gun that kills, the bullet, the shop selling the product or
the person pulling the trigger?

Is it the software manufacturer, the ISP providing the routers,
the phone company transmitting the data, the computer
hardware manufacturer or the person clicking the downlaod
button breaking the law?

There are many other examples where it takes a chain of events
and people to cause an act of law breaking to take place but in
most cases it is the person who actions the breach of law and
not those who aid in that breach who is punished.

[Scott W]

i think

i think weapons manufacturers are protected because their weapons are for "sself-defense". it wouldn't be much good if they were banned and the government needed to fight a war.

[William Squire]

Didn't you read the court statement?

YES. It applies to gun manufacturers, but NOT in the context you describe.

If a gun manufacturer advertised their product as a tool for committing murder or robbing banks, they could be sued too. P2P Software is not illegal, just like guns are not illegal.


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

Does the same go for weapons manufacturers?

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of
KILLING PEOPLE its use to CAUSE DEATH, as shown by clear
expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster VIOLENCE/
DEATH, is liable for the resulting acts of MURDER.

So all gun, bullet and knife manufacturers should be held
responsible for all law breaking activities perpetrated by their
products.

Is it the gun that kills, the bullet, the shop selling the product or
the person pulling the trigger?

Is it the software manufacturer, the ISP providing the routers,
the phone company transmitting the data, the computer
hardware manufacturer or the person clicking the downlaod
button breaking the law?

There are many other examples where it takes a chain of events
and people to cause an act of law breaking to take place but in
most cases it is the person who actions the breach of law and
not those who aid in that breach who is punished.

[Scott W]

i think

i think weapons manufacturers are protected because their weapons are for "sself-defense". it wouldn't be much good if they were banned and the government needed to fight a war.

[William Squire]

Didn't you read the court statement?

YES. It applies to gun manufacturers, but NOT in the context you describe.

If a gun manufacturer advertised their product as a tool for committing murder or robbing banks, they could be sued too. P2P Software is not illegal, just like guns are not illegal.


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

[paintedover26k]

Mmmhmmm...

maybe they should spend some time and money protecting the consumer from getting their identity stolen... if i hear one more story about how some financial instiution lost x amount of peoples private information i swear...

[paintedover26k]

Mmmhmmm...

maybe they should spend some time and money protecting the consumer from getting their identity stolen... if i hear one more story about how some financial instiution lost x amount of peoples private information i swear...

[Raife]

Only a fool... Or, someone who lives in a vacuum...

...could possibly refuse to acknowledge the true ramifications of this ruling. The simple fact is that the groups that actually pushed this to the Supreme Court, in the first place, HAVE...

-repeatedly REFUSED to acknowledge ANY of the legally-established rights of "...Fair Use".

-tried to have the ""...VCR" itself OUTLAWED.

-tried to convince people that "...selling used CDs" was a crime.

-flatly stated that "...skipping commercials" was ILLEGAL.

-been caught repeatedly LYING about the TRUE "...impact of file-sharing".

-initially tried charging hundreds of dollars for every "pre-recorded movie", ...until "home-recording" demonstrated to consumers that they were being "ripped-off".

-tried, through Federal-mandate, to have "DRM" FORCIBLY-placed in ALL devices capable of "...recording any media", what-so-ever.

-driven the makers of LEGITIMATE "back-up utilities" out-of-business with DEEP-POCKET lawsuits, rather than legal-decisions.

-were officially found to be "...unfairly manipulating the market", and "...price-fixing".

-have sued children, and completely innocent people, ...who, by the way, were forced to "...settle" simply because they could not afford to fight the corporate-lawyers.

-demanded, and acquired, the ability to have "law-enforcement", at the taxpayers expense, prosecute civil-cases of alleged "copyright-infringement".


The REAL fact is that this entire lawsuit IS ABOUT requiring ALL technology-companies to "PROACTIVELY PREVENT" any type of consumer-behavior that "Big Media Companies" dont like.

Furthermore, the FACTS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that there is ABSOLUTELY NO "...balance in copyright", at this time.

So yes, this is VERY MUCH about the reversal of "...Sony-Betamax". And yes, the only REAL effect IS the elimination of many basic CONSUMER-RIGHTS, and the RESTRICTION of ANY "technology companys" ability to create ANY "product", ...without the APPROVAL of the current "Media Giants".

That is just the way it is, ...unless you are wearing "blinders", or just plain LYING...

[Raife]

Only a fool... Or, someone who lives in a vacuum...

...could possibly refuse to acknowledge the true ramifications of this ruling. The simple fact is that the groups that actually pushed this to the Supreme Court, in the first place, HAVE...

-repeatedly REFUSED to acknowledge ANY of the legally-established rights of "...Fair Use".

-tried to have the ""...VCR" itself OUTLAWED.

-tried to convince people that "...selling used CDs" was a crime.

-flatly stated that "...skipping commercials" was ILLEGAL.

-been caught repeatedly LYING about the TRUE "...impact of file-sharing".

-initially tried charging hundreds of dollars for every "pre-recorded movie", ...until "home-recording" demonstrated to consumers that they were being "ripped-off".

-tried, through Federal-mandate, to have "DRM" FORCIBLY-placed in ALL devices capable of "...recording any media", what-so-ever.

-driven the makers of LEGITIMATE "back-up utilities" out-of-business with DEEP-POCKET lawsuits, rather than legal-decisions.

-were officially found to be "...unfairly manipulating the market", and "...price-fixing".

-have sued children, and completely innocent people, ...who, by the way, were forced to "...settle" simply because they could not afford to fight the corporate-lawyers.

-demanded, and acquired, the ability to have "law-enforcement", at the taxpayers expense, prosecute civil-cases of alleged "copyright-infringement".


The REAL fact is that this entire lawsuit IS ABOUT requiring ALL technology-companies to "PROACTIVELY PREVENT" any type of consumer-behavior that "Big Media Companies" dont like.

Furthermore, the FACTS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE that there is ABSOLUTELY NO "...balance in copyright", at this time.

So yes, this is VERY MUCH about the reversal of "...Sony-Betamax". And yes, the only REAL effect IS the elimination of many basic CONSUMER-RIGHTS, and the RESTRICTION of ANY "technology companys" ability to create ANY "product", ...without the APPROVAL of the current "Media Giants".

That is just the way it is, ...unless you are wearing "blinders", or just plain LYING...

[bobby_brady]

What does this ruling do to Tivo like devices?

I have a feeling this ruling will castrate the Tivo and Tivo like devices business plans and stifle the techonology. According to this ruling the RIAA could also sue companies such as Apple with their slogan to "Rip, copy and burn".

This was a field day for the lawyers. Anytime the high court creates ambigous statements, the lawyers win and legitimate businesses lose.

I should have become a lawyer, but really didn't want to stoop that low in life.

[bobby_brady]

What does this ruling do to Tivo like devices?

I have a feeling this ruling will castrate the Tivo and Tivo like devices business plans and stifle the techonology. According to this ruling the RIAA could also sue companies such as Apple with their slogan to "Rip, copy and burn".

This was a field day for the lawyers. Anytime the high court creates ambigous statements, the lawyers win and legitimate businesses lose.

I should have become a lawyer, but really didn't want to stoop that low in life.

[bobby_brady]

Gun makers still not held responsible

You can shot or kill someone with a gun, but the maker is not responsible. You can download a song, but the maker is responsible. Is this correct? Is our system so f'ed up that this is their logic?

[bobby_brady]

Gun makers still not held responsible

You can shot or kill someone with a gun, but the maker is not responsible. You can download a song, but the maker is responsible. Is this correct? Is our system so f'ed up that this is their logic?

Boycott the RIAA and others of their ilk

Maybe the only option left to put across the point that we are tired of paying over and over an inflated cost for their products is the Boycott of all their products. Let them sit on stacks of sub standard CD's for about 6 months and maybe there will be a change in the system as a whole.

Boycott the RIAA and others of their ilk

Maybe the only option left to put across the point that we are tired of paying over and over an inflated cost for their products is the Boycott of all their products. Let them sit on stacks of sub standard CD's for about 6 months and maybe there will be a change in the system as a whole.

Effects on BitTorrent?

Just curious, will this ruling change the way BitTorrent sites operate?

I know that there are different opinions on Torrent sites techically being P2P, but will those that host servers dedicated with Torrent files be held liable?

Effects on BitTorrent?

Just curious, will this ruling change the way BitTorrent sites operate?

I know that there are different opinions on Torrent sites techically being P2P, but will those that host servers dedicated with Torrent files be held liable?

P2P

Hi,
How can you blame the software, if someone using that is to be blamed. Grokster is just a tool and the person who is using it to illegally download copyrighted software or songs are to be blamed not the software.
If we see then all the software which is used in this kind of act should be blamed. Even microsoft, it also contains P2P software built into that, so why not blame it.
This is all a big stupid decision, I dont agree with it. Some persons, if uses microsoft as a tool to hack, should microsoft be blamed for that.
all crap,
cya,
jane

P2P

Hi,
How can you blame the software, if someone using that is to be blamed. Grokster is just a tool and the person who is using it to illegally download copyrighted software or songs are to be blamed not the software.
If we see then all the software which is used in this kind of act should be blamed. Even microsoft, it also contains P2P software built into that, so why not blame it.
This is all a big stupid decision, I dont agree with it. Some persons, if uses microsoft as a tool to hack, should microsoft be blamed for that.
all crap,
cya,
jane

This is not about copyright infringement

This is not about copyright infringement or something, all the big industries are trying to kill the p2p software so that their subscription services and their software be on demand. This all ******** drama, played by all those big companies to kill the P2P.
I have a scenario in mind, If I have a CD and I give it to my friend, am I breaking the So Called "Copyright Infringement".
This big software companies are never going to change. Money thirsty, bloody hunters like microsoft are always on the edge for look up for such oppurtunities. I have only one thing to say F*** them all.

Right and Wrong...

You're right that the issue is not about
copyright infringement, but you're wrong about
it being about moving to a services /
pay-per-use system from the current one.

In fact, media industry execs simply want to
roll back the clock to the time before P2P and
keep everything more or less as it was. The
biggest threat of P2P is it implements a very
efficient distribution system.

The looming threat isn't that people will pirate
stuff, but rather their attention might go to
legitimately distributed things not controlled
by big media. Blogs were really just the first
hint at a trend that's terrifying to media
companies. Today, you can download all sorts of
films from amateur film makers and music from
bands all around the globe -- legitimately
distributed with full permission of the authors.
People creating for the sake of creating and
without going through the conventional
distribution channels.

Sure, lot's of it is noise or garbage, but
there's increasing sophistication and quality
out there and if big media can't crush these
distribution channels in the name of piracy,
they may well face a spectre 100-fold more
threatening than open-source software is to
old-school software houses. At least with
proprietary software, you have lock-in and
predatory marketing and OEM agreements. Not so
with movies, music, etc.

There's a reason I don't invest in media
companies or funds that invest in them...

This is not about copyright infringement

This is not about copyright infringement or something, all the big industries are trying to kill the p2p software so that their subscription services and their software be on demand. This all ******** drama, played by all those big companies to kill the P2P.
I have a scenario in mind, If I have a CD and I give it to my friend, am I breaking the So Called "Copyright Infringement".
This big software companies are never going to change. Money thirsty, bloody hunters like microsoft are always on the edge for look up for such oppurtunities. I have only one thing to say F*** them all.

Right and Wrong...

You're right that the issue is not about
copyright infringement, but you're wrong about
it being about moving to a services /
pay-per-use system from the current one.

In fact, media industry execs simply want to
roll back the clock to the time before P2P and
keep everything more or less as it was. The
biggest threat of P2P is it implements a very
efficient distribution system.

The looming threat isn't that people will pirate
stuff, but rather their attention might go to
legitimately distributed things not controlled
by big media. Blogs were really just the first
hint at a trend that's terrifying to media
companies. Today, you can download all sorts of
films from amateur film makers and music from
bands all around the globe -- legitimately
distributed with full permission of the authors.
People creating for the sake of creating and
without going through the conventional
distribution channels.

Sure, lot's of it is noise or garbage, but
there's increasing sophistication and quality
out there and if big media can't crush these
distribution channels in the name of piracy,
they may well face a spectre 100-fold more
threatening than open-source software is to
old-school software houses. At least with
proprietary software, you have lock-in and
predatory marketing and OEM agreements. Not so
with movies, music, etc.

There's a reason I don't invest in media
companies or funds that invest in them...

[JitstaUnlimited]

Now my question is. You can file share on AIM, Yahoo and MSN. What are they going to do about that? People are just gonna start networking and figure out how too get someone's messenger screen name and get what they need that way. It's still illegal according too the supreme court but they have no way yet, of finding out who is doing what on messengers that way.