News US Supreme Court: P2P Ruling Today?

[GreatOldOne]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/06/27/US_P2P_Ruling/

[DeathAwaitsU]

There acting like p2p is the only way to get illegal software when usenet groups (is that right?) was here well before p2p!

Death

[quartz01]

Soo, if I by a pen and kill someone with it, will the pen company get in trouble??? If I drive drunk and kill someone, will the beer and car companies CEO's go to jail with me? This case is BS! Corporations have more rights have more rights then citizens here. Pisses me off too

[Sord_Fish]

Originally Posted by DeathAwaitsU

There acting like p2p is the only way to get illegal software when usenet groups (is that right?) was here well before p2p!

Death

p2p is mainstream everyone knows about it, find me a 13 year old that doesnt know what kazaa is. usenet is more complicated and sometimes cost so you need to pay a monthly fee, so you'll need a credit card which kind of puts people off and not many 13yos have one.

[Spaced_invader]

Originally Posted by quartz01

If I drive drunk and kill someone, will the beer and car companies CEO's go to jail with me?

Well actually here in the UK it's the bar maids fault... as long as you can argue it in court that you where acting very drunk when they served you another drink.

[Da Dego]

A couple notes:
1) There won't be appeals and counter-appeals. The very nature of the US Supreme Court is that it is the top, and it's only reached by earlier appeals (you can't start a case there). So whatever they say, that's it until they revisit it...which is almost never done. However, decision WILL get delayed again...I just heard on the radio today that they have only one case that will be ruled on before break, and this ain't it.

2) @quartz01...unfortunately, YES. Smith and Wesson and Sturm Ruger (both weapons manufacturers) were both successfully sued for other people doing dumb things with their products. If you ever buy a firearm, ever read how many warnings? Like "Do not point at living things..." What else would you do with it!? All the dumb warnings we read and go "Did someone actually DO this!?" are there because not only did someone do it, but they sued the manufacturer afterward for not explicitely telling them not to (personally, I'd be embarrased to even say I did some of the dumbass things people sue for, let alone speak about it in court).

3) @Spaced, the laws here are pretty similar in regard to what you're talking about, but we have at least a bit more personal responsibility. Not a lot, though.

It's a frightening, frightening world out there. Corporations aren't given more rights than people...but not less, either. In this case, you have one corporation just working to screw over another, just because of what John Cena said...they can't police every house. But they can shut down the companies that make the software possible...there's a lot fewer of them.

[XUntitled]

1) I hope the ruling doesn't get delayed again, lets get it done with and 2) I must agree Usenet is so much better then P2P networks. Its not that hard to use, and faster then most P2P programs. Most big internet providers (at least in the north east USA) provide access to usenet in your monthly subscription. Sure, the retention might not be great on large groups but its still long enough to get the job done (usually a week for me on the larger networks).

[GreatOldOne]

Originally Posted by Da Dego

A couple notes:
1) There won't be appeals and counter-appeals. The very nature of the US Supreme Court is that it is the top, and it's only reached by earlier appeals (you can't start a case there).

A very good point...

[GreatOldOne]

Story Updated. Hollywood 1, P2P 0.

[Jumeira_Johnny]

In case you want to read it yourself. Keep in mind, this ruling wasn't about who was right and who was wrong. This ruling merely says that the lawsuit should go ahead and that the VCR argument doesn't hold here. This doesn't mean either side has won the case.

1) There won't be appeals and counter-appeals. The very nature of the US Supreme Court is that it is the top, and it's only reached by earlier appeals (you can't start a case there).

Just to reiterate, this wasn't a ruling on a verdict. It was a ruling on procedure. 2 lower courts said that the case should not go to trial and the supreme court disagreed.

After the actual trial there could very well be appeal and counter appeals.

Originally Posted by CNN.com

But Monday's ruling by the nation's highest court does not end the battle. The Supreme Court order sends the case back for trial to the same lower court that had originally ruled in favor of Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the file-sharing services named in the case

Originally Posted by NYTimes.com

But in Monday's ruling, Souter said lower courts could find the file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as how companies marketed the product or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses.

[Sea Shadow]

I think I am starting to understand it(correct me where I make a mistake).
Basicially, yes the P2P programs were used to share copyrighted material. However the creators of the P2P are not responsible for the files as it was the users who have uploaded/downloaded/shared the files.

So this was just deciding wether it should go to court then?

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by Jumeira_Johnny

Just to reiterate, this wasn't a ruling on a verdict. It was a ruling on procedure. 2 lower courts said that the case should not go to trial and the supreme court disagreed.

After the actual trial there could very well be appeal and counter appeals.

Gotcha...reversed and remanded...? Succccky.

"After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster," Hehehe...notorious.

[Jumeira_Johnny]

Originally Posted by Sea Shadow

I think I am starting to understand it(correct me where I make a mistake).
Basically, yes the P2P programs were used to share copyrighted material. However the creators of the P2P are not responsible for the files as it was the users who have uploaded/downloaded/shared the files.

So this was just deciding whether it should go to court then?

Keep in mind I am not a legal expert, I just play one on TV. This went to trial. And the 1st court ruled that, based on the whole VCR case in the 80's, that Hollywood didn't have a case. They appealed that ruling and the 2nd court upheld the 1st court's ruling. The supreme court says now that the lower courts should reexamine the case again and take into account the supreme court's opinion that the VCR case has no bearing here.

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by Jumeira_Johnny

Keep in mind I am not a legal expert, I just play one on TV. This went to trial. And the 1st court ruled that, based on the whole VCR case in the 80's, that Hollywood didn't have a case. They appealed that ruling and the 2nd court upheld the 1st court's ruling. The supreme court says now that the lower courts should reexamine the case again and take into account the supreme court's opinion that the VCR case has no bearing here.

Exactly. The case was reversed and remanded. That means that the judgement of the lower courts was reversed (ie, summary judgement for defendant), and remanded to the lower courts for retrial.

Essentially, the lower courts now have to reexamine the case, and can't just say "Well, we didn't ban the VCR, so this is the same thing." Not a victory for Hollywood, but personally I think it's a bit of a loss for P2P...that's a big leg they were standing on that just got cut off. P2P could still win, just not on that defense.

[Kipman725]

as long as there is still a wire from my pc to yours there will never be an end to all this.

[Da Dego]

Amen.

[Firehed]

Originally Posted by GreatOldOne

Story Updated. Hollywood 1, P2P 0.

Well as all the torrent sites are now in Sweden, it hardly matters.


The only way for them to kill P2P is to take down the entire internet with it. And despite how much crap my fellow idiotic citizens can take from the government and still assume it's for their own good, I doubt that will happen.

Of course, we ALL know that the courts simply side with who has the money now. I mean, if we actually decided on things based on the law, we'd have a lot more people in jail and certainly wouldn't have the USAPATRIOT or Real ID acts (etc, etc) passed.

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by Firehed

Of course, we, we ALL know that the courts simply side with who has the money now. I mean, if we actually decided on things based on the law, we'd have a lot more people in jail and certainly wouldn't have the USAPATRIOT or Real ID acts (etc, etc) passed.

Heh, let's not forget that charming little supreme court ruling that said eminent domain can be used to take land for private retail and office projects that they did last week.

[infered101]

Why doenst the media companys go after all the other sharring devices to. They always go for p2p but what about the burner drives companys that allow you to copy cds and media devices that you can copy media to them which in return allows you to give the cd to someone else. P2p is just one of the many ways to share media. I guess the court is right though the movie company ceos are losing that extra porche this year so i mean i feel bad for them.

[Da Dego]

Originally Posted by infered101

Why doenst the media companys go after all the other sharring devices to. They always go for p2p but what about the burner drives companys that allow you to copy cds and media devices that you can copy media to them which in return allows you to give the cd to someone else. P2p is just one of the many ways to share media. I guess the court is right though the movie company ceos are losing that extra porche this year so i mean i feel bad for them.

Because the burner companies have very legitimate data archival use of a LOT of non-copyright material, as well as the right to burn a legal CD from legally downloaded media. If you burn illegal things, you are misusing a tool that has multiple legitimate uses.

The difference here is that there really is not a huge amount of P2P traffic for legal items. It's almost all illegal...in fact, there's not really a reason one would want to mass-distribute a lot of non-copyright material (except linux stuff). On top of that, the P2P software has given technical support to users as to how to find and download illegal content, clearly illustrating their intentions. If you call up Pioneer and ask why your buddy's copyright CD won't burn, they'll tell you "Good! It shouldn't, and we're not helping you get it to, either."

That's the reason the Supreme Court denied the VCR defense. VCR companies were not telling you how to dub movies and rent them, or sell them. The product had many legal, legitimate uses for personal home use of broadcast TV (ala CD writer). P2P, on the other hand, does not have that, and it has been shown that they had intent (very damaging) to assist the users of their software in stealing copyrighted content.

/* History edit: A few IRC networks got sued a few years ago for something similar, and beat the suit by saying "We offer a total communication service, and our main feature is chatting. Those people sometimes need to send files back and forth. If people pass content that is illegal, they are misusing our system. We don't openly condone or intend our services to be used like that." True P2P doesn't have this defense now, either.