Perspective: Theft by any other name

The ink on the Supreme Court's Grokster ruling was barely dry when Ed Black began lamenting the chill he believed the 9-0 decision would have on innovation.

"This is a very dangerous decision for technology and innovation," said Black, who runs the Computer & Communications Industry Association. "If you think of the Sony decision as a shield or an umbrella, we're afraid some holes have been punctured in that umbrella."

That's a mouthful. But is it true?

Considering a decision by San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the high court overturned the lower court's expansive (and wrong) interpretation of its 1984 Betamax decision. The lower court had claimed that any noninfringing use of peer-to-peer software was sufficient to absolve a company of liability for copyright infringement.

Ever since Napster became an overnight phenomenon in 1999, their conversation has been defined by a raised middle finger.

The high court wrestled with a complicated issue in coming to its unanimous conclusion. It wasn't about peer-to-peer as a technology, per se. Rather, the justices had to decide whether a distributor should be liable when its peer-to-peer technology gets used both for lawful and unlawful purposes.

The Supremes still left in place Betamax's protections for technologies with noninfringing uses, though in delivering the opinion of the court, Justice David Souter was specific about whose feet were being held to the fire, and why.

"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 by third parties," Souter said.

Viewed from that perspective, the Supreme Court did not deliver a blow against new technologies so much as it delivered a blow against the use of new technologies where the intention is to break the law.

News.com Poll

Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case?

Yes
No

View results

This is all part of a bigger dispute between Hollywood and Silicon Valley about the rules governing digital file sharing. You would assume the folks on both sides of this squabble would recognize the potential opportunity. But this remains a dialogue of the deaf. Ever since Napster became an overnight phenomenon in 1999, their conversation has been defined by a raised middle finger.

No doubt there are very tangled legal issues to get sorted out now that the case is being returned to a lower court to get retried. In the meantime, I'd love to hear the would-be defenders of the cyber common weal at places like the Electronic Frontier Foundation once--just once--come out and publicly declare that Grokster's business model is predicated on breaking the law.

With a big wink and a deep harrumph, the Grokster case has all too often been portrayed by supporters as a battle for the right to innovate. A loss would sound a death knell for new technologies. The bad guys would win, consumers would lose. Sack and ashes for the rest of us.

They never mention the uncomfortable truth that this constitutes a form of theft. Information may want to be free, but there's still the unresolved matter of downloading copyright songs, willy-nilly and without permission.

Grokster and its co-defendant Streamcast have failed to stop piracy on their networks. That's why they lost their argument before the Supreme Court. Maybe they'll have better luck with a judge in the lower court. Still, how they will argue that copyright infringement was not going to be a big part of the activity on their networks escapes me.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

Copyright is Theft of the public domain

I've heard the argument many times that making a copy is the same as stealing it from a store, despite the fact that the copyright holder has lost nothing more than the possibility of a sale. However, the continual changes in copyright law have plundered the public domain, every time extending more privilege to copyright holders without giving anything back in return. Many works that should be freely available now won't be for decades, if ever. This is theft from We The People no matter how you define theft. If the courts and corporations won't honor their end of this particular social contract, why should the rest of us?

[wnurse]

Mike, your logic is scary.

If you take something from someone and deprive them of a lost sale, it is theft. Mike, I almost fell out of my chair when you said that copying is not theft, it is merely depriving someone of a sale.. like saying walking into a store and taking a shirt is not stealing, merely depriving the store of a sale. Your argument basically amounts to theft is not theft because it is theft. Hmm.. strange circular logic.

Also, stating it is a possibility does not let you off the hook. Right now, i have no intention of buying a lamborghini (way outside my financial resources).. does that mean it is ok for me to take it because well, they only lost a possibility of a sale (actually, there was no possibility of a sale, i cannot afford that car). So, because i was never going to buy it, does that make it ok for me to take it?

[tomjes93]

copywright

It wasn't to long ago that the copywright only lasted 20 years, now it up to 99 years plus

It Shall Be Useful

Against all providers of services & products with potential illegal usages: weapons, alcohol, ...

The judge who knows lawyers know exactly what kind of Pandora box he has opened.

[Gleeplewinky]

The current issue of Wired...

Has an ad for Windows XP that states that it's
ideal for ripping and mixing musical tracks and
sharing them with friends...

It almost sounds like an invitation.

[unknown unknown]

I hope your wrong

If the Supreme Courts ruling was indeed based on the fact that Grokster failed to stop infringing activity on it's network then this truly is a dangerous ruling. How does one filter a decentralized network? After all content can be encrypted to escape detection by software like SnoCap (such technology would be impossible to effectively implement on open source clients).

Theft indeed!

When I buy a CD for $15 I am told I have purchased a license to play the music for personal use.

If the CD becomes non-functional, I cannot apply to get a replacement without paying the full price - effectively purchasing the license a second time.

I regularly rip the songs and convert them to MP3s for use with my portable players and household computers.

If I share those files with my friends and neighbours I am considered a pirate by the RIAA because they claim I am stealing from them.

Is it really stealing?

Have I denied them of their product? If I steal a car, the owner of the car no longer has his car parked in the garage.

Have I denied them of the use of their product. If I steal a car, the owner can no longer drive to the store with that car.

Have I denied them commercial exploitation of their product? If I steal a car, the owner can no longer rent it out.

Have I denied them the right to the transfer of their property? If I steal a car, the real owner is unable to sell the car.

You see, I have in fact NOT committed theft if I share music files.

If I download MP3s of music I have purchased a license for in past (perhaps a vinyl record or cassette tape), have I committed theft?

If I download MP3s of music I paid to hear at a concert, have I committed theft?

If I download MP3s of music I have never purchased and never plan to purchase, am I a thief?

The North American music industry is a corrupt bloated parasite like some engorged tic living off the avails of artists and performers through the advances of modern technology.

There was a time when artists made their money by performing in public. Modern recording technology allowed artists to capture a performance and distribute it to a wider audience. Now a single performance can continue to reap income even long after the artist has died thanks to technology.

On the downside, artists rarely perform publicly and we are denied that benefit except in rare and costly situations called concert tours, usually for the purpose of promoting the mass distribution of a CD.

The recording industry has used their financial mass and political influence to change copyright law extending the term of copyright protection far far beyond the original intent and to far beyond the benefit of the original authors and performers.

Technology created the market that the RIAA has exploited for 100 years and now seeks to protect. Technology has now completely stepped over that marketing paradigm and the music industry parasites are struggling to maintain their cash cow.

The legal system and the courts have no business maintaining the illusion of copyright theft on behalf of the RIAA when the only real issue is one of alledged infringement - the RIAA membership are not exactly dealing with clean hands.

I am an MP3 file sharer and I will continue to be an MP3 file downloader - the only thing the RIAA and their members have accomplished is I will no longer buy their CDs.

Last Guy

[hackingbear]

still stealing

In all cases you mentioned, you ALREADY broke the law, except the case in which you have purchased the same content for personal use before. For that it is the matter of who gets the burden to proof.

If you buy a CD, rip off the contents, and return it, then you ALREADY break the law!

If you get that contents from a friend who has only one license, you ALREADY break the law!

You may not feel you have broken the law only because you already get used to doing so and have not been caught. Of course, not being caught does not imply the law is not broken. It can only imply the inability of the law enforcement.

If I walk into your home at night, sleep on the floor, and leave the next morning without taking anything, you have not been hurted (maybe you are at home at all) or lost anything, does it make it legal? If you think so, then great, our homelessness problem is solved!

Have you been fined for parking your car in the mall's private parking at night where you did not patronize at the time?

The same logic applies to MP3 downloading: the protection of private property.

[kribor]

There's a thin line....

You have to be careful not to run afoul of what the Copyright Act deems is "fair use". If you purchased a CD and you rip it, put it in your iPod, on your laptop, whatever, you have not violated the copyright UNTIL you distribute it.

For the very reasons you mention, ostensibly backing up your legally purchased copy of intellectual property, an action done not to deprive the copyright owner of additional revenue, but to protect the value of the IP already purchased.

Now, if you put that MP3 up on Grokster, you just became an unauthorized distributor of protected intellectual property. If Grokster's primary motivation for existence is to provide a platform for THAT kind of activity, then they are complicit in the violation of copyright and should be forced to make restitution.

Whatever deals the originators of the intellectual property made with the actual copyright owners is moot save for the fact that usually they are based on royalties. Now, if an artist makes a bogus deal with the record label, it is not your or my responsibility to make up for the fact that THEY made a deal with the devil.

[gonzodex]

What really happens when you share music

Back in the 70s when I was a teen, we made copies of albums on cassette tapes. At one point some record companies started putting crossbones on the back of records with the phrase 'home taping is killing the music industry.' Well, the industry is not dead.

Interestingly enough, somewhere in the mid 80s the government did research and found that people who swapped tapes actually bought MORE of the music they swapped. What a concept - you get turned on to music you like, and you go out and buy more of the artist! Recent research has shown similar findings with digital file swapping.

I suspect that much of the same is happening today. While the record industry may have won a legal victory, I suspect it's only one battle in a long war...and with more and more artists learning how to record high quality on the cheap and distribute their music by bypassing the normal distribution channels, it's a war that the record industry will slowly lose...or be forced to make some serious adjustments to survive.

[Willie Winkie]

Just don't advertise what people might illegally do

This is really about the marketing of products. Remember, you see little caveats against doing illegal or stupid things from all kinds of advertisers. For example, car companies frequently show their cars being driven in an illegal and or irresponsible way. However, they include those little disclaimers on the bottom "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt". Now they know that part of making you want to buy that car is the image of what you "could" do with it if the spirit moved you. But they never tell you to do it.
Similarly, alcoholic beverage companies frequently show their products being enjoyed in large quantities. They know that a big part of the appeal of their beverage is the potential for inebriation. But they always include those little disclaimers (oh in such small print) always drink responsibely. My point here is that you cant just go around encouraging people to break the law with your product even if thats what theyre likely to do. Theres a level of responsibility that you assume when you market to the public at large.

[hardedge]

Yeah, right...

The 9th Circus is the most over-turned court in the nation. Funny you should use them as an example of anything.

"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright...is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David Souter wrote for the court. In this case, the record was "replete with evidence" that Grokster and StreamCast each "took active steps to encourage infringement."

Effectively, it's a re-iteration of existing common law: If you buy a gun and give it someone to commit a crime, you're responsible for what that person does with the gun. Adversely, if buy a gun and someone takes it from your house without your knowledge or consent, or misrepresents what they will do with the gun,, you're not responsible. That leaves more than enough wiggle room for honest P2P sites and sets the mark against those who would prefer to steal other people's property.

Jeez, "Stealing is Bad," makes headlines for two days running. Who'd have thought?

[Earl Benser]

It's really sad....

... to read all the crybaby comments about stealing really isn't
stealing. "If I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, copying a
CD isn't stealing". Yeah, sure. That wins the ******* remark of
the year award.

Unfortunately, far too many people want to define the law in
terms that let them get away with whatever the want. All in the
name of 'Freedom', whatever that is defined as...

No wonder the country is going to hell. The people are leading
the way.

The flamer actually makes a post!

Not much of one, at that.

"Unfortunately, far too many people want to define the law in terms that let them get away with whatever the want. All in the name of 'Freedom', whatever that is defined as...

"No wonder the country is going to hell. The people are leading the way."

Who's leading the way? The fat cats in the boardroom. If you take the time to read the Constitution, it quite clearly states a creative work gets copyright protection for 14 years, plus 14 years renewable.

Somehow the lawmaker-cronies to the music industry have gotten away with changing this without a constitutional amendment (Sonny Bono, author of some of the crappiest music in the industry, chipped in his share). Big companies that never had a hand in creating some music now hold a complete lock on them for years, preventing them from entering the public domain, which they should have according to the Founding Fathers.

Now we're rapidly moving toward a time, thanks to DRM, when these companies will charge for every listen - you'll never own anything. You want to listen/watch it? Pay the man. Does that sound like freedom?

Fair Use has for years been a tenable agreement between the consumers and the big companies. Yes, you could make a copy of your CD - you could even make a copy for friends and family (this does not indemnify Grokster). Now these big companies are destroying Fair Use by preventing personal copies from being made.

But it's all good and right because the big guys are doing it. The rest of us rabble get crapped on and labeled thieves simply for doing what has been perfectly legal to do (and I'm still not talking about file sharing, BTW).

So, Earl, got an uncle in the music business?

Redefining the law

> Unfortunately, far too many people want to
> define the law in terms that let them get away
> with whatever the want.

You mean the record and movie companies, redefining copyright so that they retain the rights on art forever when it should have been allowed into the public domain decades ago?

Stealing goes both ways

> Unfortunately, far too many people want to
> define the law in terms that let them get away
> with whatever the want.

Isn't this what the media companies do every time they redefine the law to give themselves an additional 20+ years extension on copyright? Someone downloading a single song has "stolen" that one song one time, but when a copyright extension is granted hundreds of thousands of works are stolen from billions of people for decades. Additionally they are actually stolen, as in the second case they are no longer available to their rightful owners (you and me), unlike the first case where they haven't been taken from anyone.

US Government 101

Interesting that you should say:

"No wonder the country is going to hell. The people are leading the way."

I can only assume you are a gradeschool dropout or not a US citizen since, from middle school and on we are taught our American history and how it is goverened.

Abraham Lincoln summed it up the best

... government of the people, by the people, for the people ...

That means that the people SHOULD be leading the way.


NOTE: This is just a response to a STUPID statement. It was probably stupid of me to bother responding as this person obviously doesn't have a brain and can't comprehend anything that is being said (for or against the idea of copyright law). But I felt a need to TRY to educate this person, to some small degree, about how this country is SUPPOSE to run it's government (Too many people have forgotten that it is their right AND their responsibility to ensure good government).

Holding P2P responsible for what people do with it

is like holding drinking glass manufacturers responsible for people who drink too much alcohol.

In individuals are responsible for the actions they take with a tool, not the tool's manufacturer.

If I kill someone with a hammer, I should go to prison, Sears shouldn't be sued because I used a craftsman in the crime.

[volterwd]

Hammer no...

gun yes...

it all depends on what the object is used for... i can use anything to kill someone.... but if i use something that is meant to kill to do it... why shouldnt the company be held responsible?

[Tom CyBold]

Rampant Violations

The local country music station I listen to is constantly distributing copyrighted works by Reba McIntire, Faith Hill, and Toby Keith. Why, just this morning, on my way to work, they distributed numerous tunes from copyrighted CDs in crystal-clear stereo quality to thousands of people. I don't think there's any doubt that radio manufacturers are aware their products are being used for such wholesale distributing of copyrighted works. Sue Delco! Sue the station's transmitter maker! Sue the Chinese company that makes the wires that carry the signals! Sue the miner who mined the copper for the wires! Sue his wife who packed his lunch! Sue the farmer who grew the food for that lunch! Sue God who made the crops grow! It's all THEIR fault that musicians can't sell $16 CDs.

[bemenaker]

Not because they failed to stop the piracy.

I agree with everything in this article but your conclusion that it is because they failed to stop the piracy. When these services all went live, they advertised the ability to get any song you want whenever you want it. Therefore, they openly promoted piracy. And that is exactly what the SC nailed them on. Nowhere did the SC say that they failed to stop the piracy, and they very clearly stated in their decision, that is was the advertisement of the use that was the problem.

[zjohnr]

Quotes out of context ...

"John Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." -President Andrew Jackson

"If you can't live without me, why aren't you dead yet?" - Cynthia Heimel

-john

[My-Self]

Copyright should not be transferable

Only the original creator should be protected by copyright laws.
For a piece of music, only the involved artists should have rights, not the middleman, now useless, broken 'record' company.
I hope artists will seek to overturn those exploitive contracts and get back ownership of their work.
If this ever happens, subscriptions with reasonable fees and conditions will be possible. Until then, free exchange ( 'record' companies call it 'piracy') will keep flourishing ...

[Gleeplewinky]

Egads!

This sort of thinking REALLY spooks the
recording industry. In fact, the notion of
making copyrights non-transferrable, or worse,
eliminating the class "works for hire" from
current copyright law would utterly change the
dynamics in the industry.

As many are aware, artists don't typically
receive revenue from CD sales -- something that
is really starting to upset a lot of artists.
It's particularly puinitive for smaller artists.
The job of the recording industry is to promote
you and selling CDs is basically a for-profit
advertising scheme.

If copyrights were non-transferable and
comapnies had to negotiate with artists, the
current promotion and distribution model would
need to be entirely reworked and profits would
plummet (for the middlemen, artists would
probably fair better overall but "superstars"
would see a pay cut).

In Europe, copyrights are pseudo-transferrable.
That is, one can negotiate exclusive marketing
of a work, but the artist always retains
creative control and the right to renegotiate
terms.

[BMR777]

P2P Companies should at least make an effort...

P2P companies should at least be forced to make an effort to keep copyrighted materials off of their network. Perhaps as Google has "Safesearch" the P2P should have some sort of "Bot" that finds files by a given artist and deletes them. I can see all sides of the argument here. The RIAA wants P2P dead to stop the copyrighted file trading to stop, the developers want P2P to cheaply distribute software LEGALLY, and the people want something for nothing, at the expense of the RIAA and music companies. Well, unfortunately, downloading copyrighted music w/o paying for it is stealing. So the courts should shut down P2P, right? No, because the developers, and those who trade legal software from small developers will suffer, such as Linux Distributions on BitTorrent. But then the RIAA gets pissed because the files are still being traded that violate the law. What a dilemma... The only way i can see to solve this is like I said, a filter. Somehow, the RIAA should establish a filter, or database of copyrighted titles, artists, and labels, and delete files found on P2P shares of a user's HD if possible, or just disallow the file transfer at an application level. Lets face it, people will always try to get something for nothing, they always have, so the only option is through the filter option, or just disallow music file downloads all together...

What a headache... and don't get me started on the spyware horror of P2P...

The Moral: Buy your music legally!
WalMart - $.88 - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://musicdownloads.walmart.com" target="_newWindow">http://musicdownloads.walmart.com</a>
MSN Music - $.99 - <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://music.msn.com" target="_newWindow">http://music.msn.com</a>

What a crazy time we live in...
BMR777
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rusnakweb.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.rusnakweb.com</a>

[zjohnr]

Good point!!

I'm sure there are millions of P2P users out there who wake up every morning with the same complaint: "Why can't I find a P2P app that limits my choices and prevents me doing as much as I can now? Why???"

Maybe MS will offer something ...

-john

Refreshing...

It's refreshing to see somebody finally come right out and say that downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material is theft.

Don't get me wrong - I typically use a BitTorrent client to download new Linux ISOs. The difference is that these files are posted with the intent that they be freely downloaded, copied, shared, etc., whereas "traditionally" copyrighted material is not.

I don't go to a record shop or video store expecting to get their wares for free. Likewise, if someone publishes material to the Internet with the intention of being paid for it, I'll either pay - or do without.

[Gleeplewinky]

Correction...

Replace "is theft" with "is copyright
infringment". Fixed.

[SeizeCTRL]

LIES!

I love how all the people riding this high horse seem so concerned about the poor starving artists. Frankly I don't give a damn if Metallica CD sales are down and Lars has to struggle with buying a new Hummer.

Record companies are the ones who profit and the RIAA are the REAL THIEFS!!! $15-20 for a CD? The technology has got to a point where it costs mere pennies to produce CDs at a fraction of the time... so why haven't CD prices DROPPED as promised when CDs first hit market and doomed the LP to a quick death?

Why is it the RIAA lobbied congress for a tax on ALL recordable media? Say I go buy a stack of CDRs for data use only, the RIAA shouldn't get a penny of that, but they do.

P2P and MP3 are not the sole cause of slowing CD sales. Simple macro economics of a recession followed by 9/11. Then the onset of new household entertainment like DVDs and console games makes that market more competetive. Why would I want to pay $20 for a CD that contains 2 good songs and 10 filler songs? I could download them for free, head over to iTunes and save myself the cash that would buy Halo 2 that I would get many more hours out of than a CD.

I would love to see more artists sale music over the web than through record labels. I would completely support them for that... but I am not paying $20 for a CD that the RIAA and whatever record label stands to make the big profit. Thanks but no thanks... I will stick to iTunes and BT.

What I think is interesting...

What I think is interesting is if you compare the costs of making an music CD vs. a DVD movie. There is no comparison. Movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and market. Audio CDs don't. Audio CDs cost less from the artists side, production, marketing, everthing. Yet they continue to cost almost as much as a DVD movie.

Even iTunes is a rip at $.99 per song. By the number you need to fill a CD (if you can even master them off to a CD directly) and you still have the full cost of a CD. Sure you may have more songs you really want. But, the point is $.99 per song is still a rip-off.

Companies that rent you songs for as long as you continue to pay for them are even bigger rip-offs. Because in the end unless you keep paying you have nothing to show for your money.

The only way to stop this is for consumers to stop buying music. Then and only then will the recording industry wake up and price things fairly. But, there are two problems with this. Consumers are morons and will never do this. They like getting the shaft too much. Second the recording industry then would just say that people aren't buying then they must be stealing. They have thier heads so far up their ass that they haven't been able to breath for nearly a decade.

Robert

LOL...

&gt; The technology has got to a point where it costs mere pennies to produce CDs at a fraction of the time

No, it costs mere pennies to STAMP a CD. That's not the same thing as producing it, distributing it, marketing it...oh, and paying the artist whatever amounts they actually end up with, which is a whole issue in itself. I'm no apologist for the recording industry - they have enough of their own ;-) - but let's be careful to present whole pictures, regardless of which side one wants to argue.

[Steve Jordan]

Officer: Arrest that car!

By the reasoning that Grokster should be held accountable for unlawful usres, I maintain that American car manufacturers should be held liable for evert accident caused by their vehicles. In fact, they should be fined for every vehicle built that is capable of driving faster than posted speed limits (a fact clearly advertised on every speedometer, and demonstrated in most commercials).

Or, to paraphrase: Driving may want to be free, but there's still the matter of driving 100MPH in a school zone.

Oh, yeah... I guess that makes everyone in NASCAR criminals. Break out the cuffs, boys.

Dont forget gun manufacturers!

Read my post further down - I agree completely with your line of reasoning.

Why should anyone be responsible any more? We'll just blame the enablers!

How does this effect 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?

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks!!!

[Gleeplewinky]

It depends...

The ruling actually opens liability to those
that create products and services where they
expressly profit from aiding in infringment.

BitTorrent "sites" per se are not affected.
Sites offering copyrighted works without
authorization of the copyright holder are
subject to infringment claims precisely to the
extent that they were before (the ruling has no
bearing).

BitTorrent itself is also not effected as it
isn't marketed for that purpose and there's no
business built around it or profit to be had by
the people that develop it.

The only time this might have bearing with
regard to BitTorrent would be on sites in the US
that act as search-engines for infringing
torrents, or companies with a US presence that
have a business model that involves distribution
of illicit content through BitTorrent as part of
that plan.

Incidentally, I might add that BitTorrent is a
great tool. A lot of software vendors are
distributing their packages via BitTorrent these
days, and a lot of database providers (including
the NIH) are starting to develop BitTorrent
distribution models for their databases. It
really is fantastically efficient for wide
distribution of large files. Personally, I use
it to distribute home video and it works like a
charm...

Join my class action suit

Here's my thinking:

If people who write software that could possibly be used to infringe copyrights, even if those tools have legitimite uses, then I think its about damn time to go after the gun manufacturers. The same logic holds there, right?

Sure, you can go hunt with your gun, but that SAME exact gun COULD be used to kill someone. So, it only stands to reason that these careless manufacturers have enabled a whole generation of potential murderers, which is a FAR more grievous crime than spreading copies of Buffy the Vampire Slayer around.

Oh, and we should be able to go after:

Doctors for being able to kill someone with their bad decisions
Lawyers who could potentially harm someone by screwing up their case and getting them sentenced to death
Politicians who could pass really bad laws, leading to death (Or, sleep with the wrong women and infect others)
Oil companies, whose products could be used to blow stuff up
Car companies - dozens, if not hundreds of people die because of cars every day.

So come on! Throw personal responsibility out the window and just blame everyone else!

[SeizeCTRL]

LOL

Good point but I want a P90 yet the right to bear arms prohibits me from owning one. Would like a Colt M4 too, but I would have to buy a dumbed down version even though the constitution says I have the right to own fire arms.

The Supreme Court's logic could be applied to all sorts of industries as already mentioned guns and automobiles to kitchen knives.

What the hell is wrong with society to where we sue game companies because some stupid kid thought it was ok to shoot at cars? The game is not to blame, the parents are. I don't think the game company nor the gun company should be sued over the idiocy of an individual. But that's basically what the Supreme Court is getting at.

[volterwd]

Dont kill p2p

how will i get my pron?

[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&#38;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.