Comments on: Theft by any other name

Critics of the Supreme Court's Grokster decision never mention the real stumbling block, writes CNET News.com's Charles Cooper.

[kingwr]

What about software that can send SPAM?

What about that stuff that you spray on your license plate to stop red-light cameras from taking your picture? What about Radar Detectors? What about makers of phone tap and spy equipment? What about the gun manufacturers? How about the manufacturer of fertilizer or chemicals you can use in bombs?

Where to draw the line? I will tell you where. Only criminal activity should be criminal. If Grokster et al have not made a substantial step towards illegally infringing on the copyrights of others, then they are guilty of nothing. I would be more in favor of a decision to prosecute people who install the software for attempt than for penalties for the software makers themselves. This would at least be consistent with 200+ years of criminal liability law.

[Old Ausie Tom]

Giving away the cake, eating it and keeping it?

Very few things in life are for free. The notion that someone can correctly purchase music and then have the right to give a copy away to anyone else under the guise of swapping files is clearly wrong. The file is not swapped, they still have it! I am more than happy to pay for what I seek and fully support purchase of tracks online. No issues, everyone gets there due.

exactly ...

... nothing in life can be obtained with no explicit cash transaction at the point of obtaining or using the thing or service obtained, which is why all our radios have quarter slots on them, and why the cable set-top box monitors what we watch and sends us an itemized bill for each show, and why it's illegal to borrow your neighbor's drywall hammer for a quick project which you'd otherwise (without the illegal borrowing) have to buy your own hammer to do, thereby depriving the hammer maker of his rightful due.

[stephenmeyer]

THEFT? IF P2P IS THEFT, THEN SO IS A WHOLE LOT MORE

If P2P technology is just a " new technology where the intention is to break the law"..then what in god's name was the tape-recorder? The Walkman?

Is every person who owns a computer with CD burning capability in the USA, also guilty then of that that same intention?

The Supreme Court decision is too late to have any real effect on salvaging the music industry, The technology has come too far. So Grokster might go away. Anybody want to guess how many offline Intranets will now be created in the next few years for the exact same purposes?

Steve Meyer
President - Smart Marketing
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter
Editor, Digital Technology: www.allaccess.com
Las Vegas, NV
E-mail: [e-mail]

Ruling is a BIG win, but not for who you think.

By their ruling it would seem to me that:
Any manufacturer of a gun or weapon that can kill, since murder is a crime, can now be held accountable for any death associated with any product they make. Guns etc.
So, all the poor civilians in Iraq who were Innocently KILLED now have the opening to sue the US arms manufacturer. Any Innocent Civilian killed anywhere using a US manufactured product can sue.
ALL the people Killed in 911 can sue Boeing since their aircraft Killed them.

After all, The arms people make no bones about the fact that these weapons are for killing. Bombs built by the US Government opens it up to suit as well, since the stated purpose is "Killing".

Then You have CAR companies whose vehicles have killed in Accidents. The reading seems to say that these car companies are liable for the deaths.

Looks like even a TV Show or Movie becomes responsible for any actions done because of the "use" of it's product. Films have often shown ways to kill or other crimes to hapless "Copy cat" people who do it. The copy cat people should be able to sue the film maker for their information and instruction.

This could keep lawyers going for years and years.
Oh don't forget that they also become liable if any person is jailed and innocent. Their service did that.

Sorry but first we had the partiot act that took away many freedoms and now we have the supreme court ACT that makes anyone who provides a product or service liable for any "misuse" of it's product.

That is REALLY broad stroke.
I wish you all luck.
Maybe it is time to move out of the US.

Ruling is a BIG win, but not for who you think.

By their ruling it would seem to me that:
Any manufacturer of a gun or weapon that can kill, since murder is a crime, can now be held accountable for any death associated with any product they make. Guns etc.
So, all the poor civilians in Iraq who were Innocently KILLED now have the opening to sue the US arms manufacturer. Any Innocent Civilian killed anywhere using a US manufactured product can sue.
ALL the people Killed in 911 can sue Boeing since their aircraft Killed them.

After all, The arms people make no bones about the fact that these weapons are for killing. Bombs built by the US Government opens it up to suit as well, since the stated purpose is "Killing".

Then, You have CAR companies whose vehicles have killed in Accidents. The reading seems to say that these car companies are liable for the deaths.

The manufacturers of Hand tools can be sued because they are used by criminals and thieves.

Looks like even a TV Show or Movie becomes responsible for any actions done because of the "use" of it's product. Films have often shown ways to kill, or other crimes, to hapless "Copy cat" people who do it. The copy cat people should be able to sue the film maker for their information and instruction.

This could keep lawyers going for years and years.
Oh don't forget that, they also become liable if any person is jailed and innocent. Their service did that.

Sorry but first we had the partiot act that took away many freedoms and now we have the supreme court ACT that makes anyone who provides a product or service liable for any "misuse" of it's product.

That is REALLY broad stroke.

I wish you all luck.
Maybe it is time to move out of the US.

P2P sellers aren't heros

What makes file sharing networks worthy of any admiration? They are in it for the bucks just like the recording industry. The constitution protects us when we share our media and that hasn't changed. It doesn't protect us if we sell it. Piracy for profit is not protected by the constitution. If the file sharing networks would like to dispense with their advertising and work for free, they might find themselves in a more defensible position. But somehow I don't see that happening.

P.S. For those who haven't ever read the supreme court ruling in Betamax (which appears to be most everyone), the supreme court did not say it was a constitutional right to copy or share copyrighted media. They said that any attempt to enforce the rights of copyright holders would violate the 1st amendment. There is a difference.

[Fray9]

Induce Act End-Run

Well of course the RIAA is cheering.

They just got their Induce Act implemented.

Since it got shot down and failed to be made law due to companies having the chance to step up and fight against it they just used to courts to create precedent that has the exact same effect where no one could dispute it.

[m.kroposki]

Grokster about theft ???

Dear Mr. Cooper,
Your understandiung of the legal issues in Grokster is superficial if not outright incorrect.
The principle legal issue was third party liability for anothers possible infringements. I say possible because the direct infringers were not part of this case. Third party liability is not something favored in our culture and its legal system. Individuals are to make their own free choice of action(and be responsible for their actions). I wonder if you see gun manufacturers liabile for murders committted with their products. How about auto manufacturers responsible for injuries caused by autos made to easily exceed the speed limit? especially if the autos are advertised for their ability to go fast!Is this type of advertisement an inducement to speed?
As for your claims of copyright as "theft". Do you know that copyright is very different from common concepts of Material property? In particular copyright has allowance for fair use, the first sale doctrine and many other compex exceptions. For example the the Federal digital home recording act specifically allows private copying of recordings on a home computer!
Since you seem to be drawn to buzz words like theft perhaps we should call your writing "stupid".
Mickey

Supreme court and RIAA logic will put Microsoft out of business

The argument the Supreme Court used to justify calling many p2p utilities and networks illegal is whether they "actively encouraged" use of the product for copyright infringement.

So let's see where this logic would go in the case of the Microsoft Windows Operating Systems.

Ok, so you've got this thing called "Windows Media Player". Has a cool equalizer, and can play mpegs and avi's. It can find music for you on the internet, and it can burn songs from computer to cd.

It also rips copyrighted cd's to the hard-drive, so the ripper may use those song files as they wish.

Not only does the WMP rip copyrighted music, but if you are connected to the internet while the ripping takes place, the WMP will use information specific to the cd to search the internet and return with the correct album name and song titles, instead of the songs being labeled "track 1" "track 2", etc.

Is it just me, or does the Windows Media Player seem to dwarf p2p software and networks with it's very specific ability to enable the user to copy copyrighted works, right down to the correct song titles for each track?

Add to this, that other thing that WMP does that seems to scream "actively encouraging infringment of copyrighted music", namely, WMP's specific ability to ACQUIRE LICENSES AUTOMATICALLY FROM THE INTERNET TO ENABLE THE PLAYING OF A COPY-PROTECTED/COPYRIGHTED SONG.....

.....and you end up with a June 2005 Supreme Court Decision that, if carried to it's logical conclusion, will hit Bill Gates and Micro$soft in the pocketbook harder than the anti-trust case ever did.

For those who respond, please answer my questions:

Should the criteria that defines "actively encouraging copyright infringement" by applied to all software utilities that are designed to make copies of cd's? In other words, if WinMx should be shut down because RIAA discovered that it is 90% used to copy copyrighted songs, what do you think people are doing with Microsoft's "Windows Media Player", and it's specific ability to not only make an exact copy of a copyrighted music cd, complete with correct song titles applied to the files after searching the internet....but also it's ability to turn right around and burn those copied songs onto a cd?

If you think my argument is weak or just plain wrong, why? If you agree with RIAA and Supreme Court that p2p networks exist mostly to actively encourage copyright infringement, well, what do you think the masses are doing with the Windows Media Player, the most popular computer media player, and it's very specific ability, not only to reproduce copyrighted work without so much as a warning, but to burn those saved songs to cd?

How, in your opinion, did Microsoft and it's Windows Media Player are not seen by the RIAA as possibly actively encouraging copyright infringment, but they sure do hunt down p2p networks and software utilities which actually don't do quite as good of a job infringing on copyrighted music as the WMP does?

And lastly, if you compare most p2p software disclaimers which say something like "do not use this software to infringe on copyrighted music", with WMP's offer "check here to acquire licenses automatically for protected content", which one sounds like it serves the purpose of copyright infringement better?

Oh wait, one more......couldn't the supreme court's position on "active encouragment" be used to shut down the manufacturers of ANY software utility or network that enables a person to make a copy of copyrighted music without verifying permission was granted from the copyright holder?

I'm sure the RIAA fatcats are singing a happy song because the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

I just hope that at least of their attorneys reminded them, sufficiently before June 2005, that a judgement in their favor would be rendered utterly ineffective just as soon as any lower court issues a verdict in disagreement with that decision. After all, the power and authority of the Supreme Court's pro-RIAA judgement is to be found within the phrase "actively encouraging the infringment of copyright."

And it's the lower courts that must both interpret what "active" means, and then how to apply the existing laws.

Wasn't it the lower courts that disagreed with the RIAA for so long?

Keep your heads up, fellow WinMx gluttons, she will be back up and running at full speed before the ink on the lower court's disagreement with the Supreme Court is dry.