News US Supreme Court: P2P Ruling Today?

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.

 

It it true that P2P is currently used to spread illegal content but the tech as a good potentional for other uses. Such as game distros and large OS updates. But the truth is alot of the content coming out these day is utter crap and not worth the money to waste on going to a movie theater or getting rental, there are very few good movies that i have seen.

 

OUR JUDGES ON ON THE PAYROLL !!!

If this isn't proof that the supreme court judges are on the payroll of major corp. well then I don't know what does... how about this ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

http://www.lawmemo.com/articles/sct03-04.htm



And people say that Bush is trying to appoint corrupt judges ... well gues what .... they are allready here.



More proof that the hard left is really just corporate left.

Hey but we saw all of this comming didn't we .....

One Last thought ...... NO MATTER WHAT LAW IS MADE .... Techonology will overcome.

 

I use p2p leagaly... bit torrent is amzingly fast for downloading large mods and dosen't require registration or have caped download speed limits and crap navigation system like file planet...

we just need a new way of distribution the p2p programs (torrent links?)

 

I guess I'll have to bust out my constitutional rights via a shotgun, then.

And anyways, the companies aren't losing anything - if anything, they gain money through p2p. People get to sample more music and are more inclined to buy what they like. Whereas the majority of recent movies and music suck, so they wouldn't be purchased anyways. More sampling means more purchasing, where crap releases where one decent song is on the CD that costs $15 only sells to fools.

I love how the american media are completely misreporting what the verdict was.

/edit - oh, that foxnews thing can't be taken seriously. I didn't bother even reading it because fox news isn't the slighest bit an unbiased news source. I mean they have some things that are true, but they'll do anything and everything in their power to put the conservitive views in the positive light.

And everyone knows that "it wasn't intended to be used that way" is the biggest crap excuse ever. I'm all for its use in a case like this, but nobody buys it anymore. Yes, p2p was, afaik, started for legitimate downloading (ex linux distros, game patches, open source software, etc), but then it quickly went to illegal sharing. Not at all like napster (ver 1) that was solely for illegal music sharing.

The generation above me refuses to believe it still, but we are losing more rights by the day (this is a bad example, but the owning land thing, many others) is just a slow conversion to total government control over all aspects of life. Even u-POPs and ingame advertisements (read: EA games) - if I wanted to put up with a bunch of crap advertising before watching my movie or playing my game, I would watch it on TV, not pay $20-$50 for it. If they're going to u-POP in adverts into DVDs, they'd damn well better be giving out the movies, and same for games. Even some video streams stick a commercial in front now.

God I REALLY hate capitalism. It just gives more power to the suits, because they can do whatever they want, becuase they can afford to. My dad says people will only take so much of it before there is some huge backlash, but unfortunately it's hard to start a boycott on DVDs. And of course, the MPAA would have any related website shut down and taken over within minutes of them finding out, again because they have the money to do that.

 

What absoulte and sheer insanity. I hope they go after the makers of weaponry and guns then for every-single gun related death and injury since firearms were first invented. Id like to see that happen. Screw rich people loosing a few bob in the movie and music industrys - what about the people who have lost their lives because of the manufacture of firearms. Surely the same logic applys??

 

some people are missing the point here, its not that p2p programs are deemed illegal its the fact that grokster etc were marketing their products as "the easiest way to get ANY song immeditely" so the fact they are advertising their product as a source to download songs protected by copyright is the fact they have been hit hard, if they had just kept up the warning "dont use this for illegal purposes" etc then they wouldnt be in this trouble but they used that marekting direction to gain more money

edit: example being;

it would be the same if mclaren marketed the F1 as "the best way to evade the police and break the speed limit" obviously they would get pulled down immeditaly

 

Me too, I claim the belltower with the sniper rifle, you can have the front door.

Funny thing about that, was listening to a Canadian radio show tonight called "As it Happens," and they were mentioning the fact that there are now three full studies that show there's no connection with the media revenues and the file-sharing. In fact, they said, it may be linked to something a little bit different...2 things, in fact. The first, a term called "economic recession." The second, a term called "Crappy releases not worth buying." Oh. Who knew?

Yep. Oooh, it was a horrible defeat for the P2P...Media companies emerge victorious! YAAY! Wha!?

amen.

And Bindi, you have NO idea...be thankful you live in a country where at least the masses exercise some common sense.

 

Don't we love this corrupt cespool that is the economy and govt?

If this deteriorates any further, someone needs to sue the movie industry for desensitizing the youth and making them commit violent crimes (just like how they are trying to blame video games these days...[mumbles]crazy politicans[/mumbles]). *sniffle* because he saw the matrix he shot poor timmy, and now he will be crippled forever, he needs full resitiution.*sniffle*

*note I have nothing against the movie, was just a ficticious example of what might end up happenening

 

People HAVE tried to sue gunmakers (and those who sold the guns, and those who made the bullets, and anyone related) in the past for gun-related deaths. But I agree - if you can sue software makers for what people do with their software that's not to be done, you should be able to sue the car maker for your erratic driving or the brewery for your hangover or every smoker in the city you live in for your exposure to second-hand smoke (and of course the cig company).


...1984: when do YOU think it will happen? I'm glad Bit is run by you Brits so once my freedom of speech is completely revoked (as it is a good bit already, what with the huge amounts of censorship and the government easily being able to control the media) in this country, I can keep making posts like this.

Who wants to organize www.buyp2psoftwaremakersticketstosweden.com? I think if everyone who's used p2p donated a penny, the writers would all be safe and fairly well-funded for more development

Good point Fusen - Grokster is specifically the one they mentioned on the news. Of course what with dvddecrypter being shut down (R.I.P.) by presumably Sony, I'm very irritated, as I use that as the first step of ALL my Xvid encoding, the majority of which is totally legitimate.

So... if it was sony who killed dvdd development, and we know microsoft's official stance is no piracy, then the boycotting that should ensue by p2p'ers should land the revolution in the #1 spot

I think the problem we'll have, as I mentioned before, is that stopping these things we hate (uPOP'd in previews, etc) is very hard to do without organization, and it's very hard to organize. As for the right to bear arms and defend our land, not to mention rebuilding the government if it becomes corrupt, would get you a nice cell in jail or a chair with a very high electricity bill (or my favorite, the sterylized (sp?) needle full of poison).

We really SHOULD try to organize something against the digital controls though... why not be the first? dontlettheriaaandmpaaseethis.bit-tech.net?

 

As mentioned before this ruling was directed specifically at certian companies and the promotion of their products. It has little relavence for P2P technology such as BitTorrent as that was primarily promoted as a means of distributing large files by business for legitimate purposes (Linus Distros for example). Gnokster did advertise in the past that you could get any song or movie you wanted and even encouraged ppl to rip their music and share with others; that is exactly what this ruling highlighted rather than all P2P companies being liable per se.

 

So this is about intent then, as well as not being an actual ruling?

- H.

 

Yes, but seeing as the internet is worldwide, they'll have a hard time stopping any of the software being used, even if they do sue the coders.

 

Exactly, which makes it very specific to this case and not much of a victory for any one party, although the corporations are most happy. The argument goes that trying to prove your intent against a team of industry lawers will be such an expensive undertaking most companies will not even consider fighting any legal action. Grokster has actually made money on the back of promoting an illegal activity, which is what the judges were told and why they ruled unanimously.

 

That seems logical enough, but dont think it'll stop there. The powers that be will use this ruling to have a go at EVERYONE in due time.

Fair enough, Boon

 

It seems that way...

 

well they can't unless they can prove intent on any of the other p2p programs, and tbh my bit-torrent is 100% fully legal, I myself use it to release my own software as well as use it to download open source software.

 

As bindi mentioned, it's just not likely to stop there. We enter a slippery slope here. First, we sue companies that *openly have intent*, thus they are aiding in illegal acts. This constitutes a very high-nature civil tort (Not to be confused with the food). We do this by *expanding* the base of the law that first step out to now include P2P as a delivery system for illegal means.

Next, it won't be a big leap to expand out the second step, showing that other companies are *complicit* in the illegal trafficking. This constitutes a less serious tort, one of gross negligence (they failed to attempt to prevent what had previously been demonstrated in the above case as illegal). Then we can go on to lesser negligence torts, etc, etc.

This is, unfortunately, already a second step. Napster stored the info on its servers, which busted it. Now there is a second foothold. So Boon may be correct that the specifics may only apply to these two companies, but law is all about expanding on the pre-existing rulings. And since there are companies that extend all the way from openly assisting (Grokster) to being subject to abuse without ever having entertained the notion of illegality (IRC servers, Usenet groups, etc) and everything in between (Bit torrent, Hotline, E-Donkey), they can build the bridge in complete thin air one company/lawsuit at a time by patiently suing everyone in the right order. And the media companies, my friends, have deep pockets...far more than any young software company.

It was not the victory that the media companies profess, but don't let that fool you into thinking this is as far as it could go.

 

Well here in the Uk you have free speech unless you are "inciting racial hatred" or the new on coming in "inciting religious hatered". There suprisingly large catagories and as I hate all religion equaly Im guilty of the second one, which isn't law yet but I will have to keep my mouth shut when that law is passed. Anyway how exactly do you be president/prime minister I want to have that job and I see no info on how to get into it.

*see you in the bell tower guys* *loads RPG*

 

Excellent point, Da Dego. Of course, the legal system shouldn't be allowed to use previous rulings in current cases, because it adds all sorts of bias into the line (which is really what this ruling was all about, the VCR thing).

Of course, you could go for the defend yourself method and save a million bucks.