Take that file-swappers!
A big blow to parasitic companies..
Monday, June 27, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Today was a big win for those of us who value intellectual property. Companies like Grokster and Kazaa and others who profit off of enabling people to conveniently steal software, music, videos, etc. are now on notice thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
The Supreme court found that peer-to-peer providers are indeed liable for how users make use of their network. I for one am pretty pleased with this outcome on a number of levels.
A few years ago, Napster took the world by storm. Its developer was hailed as a visionary and the company became a household name. But many developers, including us, were pretty unhappy with the whole thing. Automated piracy is not revolutionary or innovative. Many companies (including Stardock) had thought of such file sharing concepts in the past but did not invest in them because it would be difficult to keep people from pirating. But companies and individuals with fewer scruples not only went forward with such ideas but profited greatly from them and won both fame and fortune.
These companies exist, IMO, purely to profit from people pirating other people's work. Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly.
The Supreme Court wrote:
"There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."
While the court will, in future cases, need to clarify some of the elements of its ruling, I think this is a big win for people who create intellectual property. I don't have a huge angst about piracy per se, but I have a lot of angst about companies in the business of profiting from it.
 |
|
Page 10 of 11 | |
|
|---|
cougent
Reply #182 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 4:54 PM
Reply #182 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 4:54 PM
Jafo, I am sure you were around in the pre-internet BBS days, remember the term "flamers"?
For those who don't, they were guys who got into discussion threads just to argue. They didn't make a point because they have none, their intent was just to see how much turmoil they could create. Well all things old become new again.
vasqo, jafo has asked you 4 times in the last few messages to state your opinion or position, yet all you do is continue to 1) argue against others and 2) throw out witty insults. No doubt this very message will draw your attention back to me (however I now find it amusing, so go ahead).
You are like a politician, you have spoken at length and even eloquently at times and yet you have said nothing. Oh I know, you have said something, I am just too desnse to understand it. OK, then simplify it for us old thick headed morons and re-state your position.
Lastly, would you mind answering a few questions... since you have admitted that the profile info is not you...
1) Do you use file sharing to get music, movies, software?
2) The profile says 21, are you young?
3) Do you produce or create any music, movies or software?
4) (If yes to #3) Do you give it away or do you try to sell it for profit?
For those who don't, they were guys who got into discussion threads just to argue. They didn't make a point because they have none, their intent was just to see how much turmoil they could create. Well all things old become new again.
vasqo, jafo has asked you 4 times in the last few messages to state your opinion or position, yet all you do is continue to 1) argue against others and 2) throw out witty insults. No doubt this very message will draw your attention back to me (however I now find it amusing, so go ahead).
You are like a politician, you have spoken at length and even eloquently at times and yet you have said nothing. Oh I know, you have said something, I am just too desnse to understand it. OK, then simplify it for us old thick headed morons and re-state your position.
Lastly, would you mind answering a few questions... since you have admitted that the profile info is not you...
1) Do you use file sharing to get music, movies, software?
2) The profile says 21, are you young?
3) Do you produce or create any music, movies or software?
4) (If yes to #3) Do you give it away or do you try to sell it for profit?
Ka806
Reply #183 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:33 PM
Reply #183 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:33 PM
You know ill gladly answer some of your questions. ( For my sake)
1. I use file sharing to get music, movies, and software
2. Im as young as I feel I am =P
3. I do produce music, and software
4. I give away all the music I make. I make software on the side and give it away. And of course any software I make for work, must obviously be for profit
.
5. Yes I think intellectual property is stupid, however copyrights are not.
And vasgo, I do advise that you speak in a manner that is more .....practical, this is a forum not a tea party at some millionnaire condo
1. I use file sharing to get music, movies, and software
2. Im as young as I feel I am =P
3. I do produce music, and software
4. I give away all the music I make. I make software on the side and give it away. And of course any software I make for work, must obviously be for profit
.5. Yes I think intellectual property is stupid, however copyrights are not.
And vasgo, I do advise that you speak in a manner that is more .....practical, this is a forum not a tea party at some millionnaire condo
Ka806
Reply #184 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:37 PM
Reply #184 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:37 PM
This debate got real pointless real fast. It seems like people are debating over what a debate is ........or something like that.
maxholder
Reply #185 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 8:49 PM
'an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.'
it is not i that has continually felt the need to define this argument in absolutes admin jafo. indeed my only contradiction has been to deny that the p2p filesharing issue can be defined in the narrow terms that you propose, something that the supreme court ruling would seem to concur with. the reasons why this may be the case have been outlined repeatedly by myself and others.
- the software technology and the distribution and possession of that software that enables p2p filesharing is not synonymous with the act of of illegal filesharing. the court ruling instead emphasizes the necessity of proving the promotion of that software to enable illegal filesharing.
- this is a crucial distinction that your own, and others, situating of this argument in the morally simplistic terms of right and wrong seeks to elide. it is crucial because it bespeaks of the inherent complexity entailed in this case. if the act of p2p filesharing were as black and white as you suggest the court would have ruled otherwise and both the practice and the technology that enables that practice would now be illegal. but it did not.
the complexity does not simply reside in the difficulty of the court's own position in coming to a sustainable judgement however, but can be further seen to be reflected in the outcome of the ruling itself.
- the ambiguity entailed in defining what exactly the term 'promotion' means.
- the inconsistencies regarding the promotion of illegal activity and the pre-existing conventions of commercial advertising in which key aspects of a product are privileged selling points - as with the corvette's 186 mph speed capability - a selling point that is otherwise redundant except for anything other than breaking the law. common sense may well be expected to prevail but this does not lessen the promotion of an illegal practice that the advertising seeks to legitimize. why would there be an emphasis on speed as a selling point on a mainstream consumer item otherwise?
the complexity of a technology that is indiscriminate in the facility that it allows for in the sharing of information - whether legal or illegal, sanctioned or non-sanctioned.
- the problematic that illegal filesharing is not confined to a 'minority' as you erroneously argue but that has become a mainstream cultural pheonomenon. this is not to suggest that the majority of computer users are inveterate filesharers but rather that the possession and sharing of illegal files no matter how limited, is, by even conservative estimates, thought not to be confined to the few.
- the inherent difficulties involved in enforcing laws and regulating a medium in which the very technology upon which ownership is based continually enables the boundaries of that intellectual property to be undermined.
if an argument is an intellectual process and contradiction simply the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes then perhaps it is time for you and others in this discussion to support your own positions as to why p2p filesharing is not anything more than the 'right or wrong' affair that you have continually made it out to be - other than with impotent assertions and unsubstantiated claims.
the fact that you are profoundly unable to grasp either the court's or my own position other than as being one of either 'for or against', admin jafo, merely reflects you inability to move beyond your own reductionist arguments.
perhaps the reason you cannot 'fathom the machinations of a slug' is that your ambition exceeds your cognitive ability. now there's a thought - albeit perhaps a too profound one.
Reply #185 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 8:49 PM
| Yes, it's clearly senility which prevents me from seeing your slant of things... but then i cannot fathom the machinations of a slug either... Come on... we're dying to hear just 'what' you think, rather than simple contradiction of others'. |
'an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.'
it is not i that has continually felt the need to define this argument in absolutes admin jafo. indeed my only contradiction has been to deny that the p2p filesharing issue can be defined in the narrow terms that you propose, something that the supreme court ruling would seem to concur with. the reasons why this may be the case have been outlined repeatedly by myself and others.
- the software technology and the distribution and possession of that software that enables p2p filesharing is not synonymous with the act of of illegal filesharing. the court ruling instead emphasizes the necessity of proving the promotion of that software to enable illegal filesharing.
- this is a crucial distinction that your own, and others, situating of this argument in the morally simplistic terms of right and wrong seeks to elide. it is crucial because it bespeaks of the inherent complexity entailed in this case. if the act of p2p filesharing were as black and white as you suggest the court would have ruled otherwise and both the practice and the technology that enables that practice would now be illegal. but it did not.
the complexity does not simply reside in the difficulty of the court's own position in coming to a sustainable judgement however, but can be further seen to be reflected in the outcome of the ruling itself.
- the ambiguity entailed in defining what exactly the term 'promotion' means.
- the inconsistencies regarding the promotion of illegal activity and the pre-existing conventions of commercial advertising in which key aspects of a product are privileged selling points - as with the corvette's 186 mph speed capability - a selling point that is otherwise redundant except for anything other than breaking the law. common sense may well be expected to prevail but this does not lessen the promotion of an illegal practice that the advertising seeks to legitimize. why would there be an emphasis on speed as a selling point on a mainstream consumer item otherwise?
the complexity of a technology that is indiscriminate in the facility that it allows for in the sharing of information - whether legal or illegal, sanctioned or non-sanctioned.
- the problematic that illegal filesharing is not confined to a 'minority' as you erroneously argue but that has become a mainstream cultural pheonomenon. this is not to suggest that the majority of computer users are inveterate filesharers but rather that the possession and sharing of illegal files no matter how limited, is, by even conservative estimates, thought not to be confined to the few.
- the inherent difficulties involved in enforcing laws and regulating a medium in which the very technology upon which ownership is based continually enables the boundaries of that intellectual property to be undermined.
if an argument is an intellectual process and contradiction simply the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes then perhaps it is time for you and others in this discussion to support your own positions as to why p2p filesharing is not anything more than the 'right or wrong' affair that you have continually made it out to be - other than with impotent assertions and unsubstantiated claims.
the fact that you are profoundly unable to grasp either the court's or my own position other than as being one of either 'for or against', admin jafo, merely reflects you inability to move beyond your own reductionist arguments.
perhaps the reason you cannot 'fathom the machinations of a slug' is that your ambition exceeds your cognitive ability. now there's a thought - albeit perhaps a too profound one.
Ka806
Reply #186 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:00 PM
what?
Reply #186 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:00 PM
| 'an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.' it is not i that has continually felt the need to define this argument in absolutes admin jafo. indeed my only contradiction has been to deny that the p2p filesharing issue can be defined in the narrow terms that you propose, something that the supreme court ruling would seem to concur with. the reasons why this may be the case have been outlined repeatedly by myself and others. - the software technology and the distribution and possession of that software that enables p2p filesharing is not synonymous with the act of of illegal filesharing. the court ruling instead emphasizes the necessity of proving the promotion of that software to enable illegal filesharing. - this is a crucial distinction that your own, and others, situating of this argument in the morally simplistic terms of right and wrong seeks to elide. it is crucial because it bespeaks of the inherent complexity entailed in this case. if the act of p2p filesharing were as black and white as you suggest the court would have ruled otherwise and both the practice and the technology that enables that practice would now be illegal. but it did not. the complexity does not simply reside in the difficulty of the court's own position in coming to a sustainable judgement however, but can be further seen to be reflected in the outcome of the ruling itself. - the ambiguity entailed in defining what exactly the term 'promotion' means. - the inconsistencies regarding the promotion of illegal activity and the pre-existing conventions of commercial advertising in which key aspects of a product are privileged selling points - as with the corvette's 186 mph speed capability - a selling point that is otherwise redundant except for anything other than breaking the law. common sense may well be expected to prevail but this does not lessen the promotion of an illegal practice that the advertising seeks to legitimize. why would there be an emphasis on speed as a selling point on a mainstream consumer item otherwise? the complexity of a technology that is indiscriminate in the facility that it allows for in the sharing of information - whether legal or illegal, sanctioned or non-sanctioned. - the problematic that illegal filesharing is not confined to a 'minority' as you erroneously argue but that has become a mainstream cultural pheonomenon. this is not to suggest that the majority of computer users are inveterate filesharers but rather that the possession and sharing of illegal files no matter how limited, is, by even conservative estimates, thought not to be confined to the few. - the inherent difficulties involved in enforcing laws and regulating a medium in which the very technology upon which ownership is based continually enables the boundaries of that intellectual property to be undermined. if an argument is an intellectual process and contradiction simply the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes then perhaps it is time for you and others in this discussion to support your own positions as to why p2p filesharing is not anything more than the 'right or wrong' affair that you have continually made it out to be - other than with impotent assertions and unsubstantiated claims. the fact that you are profoundly unable to grasp either the court's or my own position other than as being one of either 'for or against', admin jafo, merely reflects you inability to move beyond your own reductionist arguments. perhaps the reason you cannot 'fathom the machinations of a slug' is that your ambition exceeds your cognitive ability. now there's a thought - albeit perhaps a too profound one. |
what?
cougent
Reply #187 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:17 PM
Reply #187 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:17 PM
Ka806 I was actually asking the questions of vasqo, but thanks for answering anyway.
Jafo
Reply #188 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:31 PM
Reply #188 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:31 PM
| perhaps the reason you cannot 'fathom the machinations of a slug' is that your ambition exceeds your cognitive ability. now there's a thought - albeit perhaps a too profound one. |
Cute, perhaps eloquent but ultimately a personal attack....tempered only by 'perhaps'.
OK...I'll spell it out for the last time...
File sharing, aka P2P = good when 'sharer' OWNS that which is shared [and/or rights to its distribution].
File sharing, aka P2P = bad when 'sharer' does NOT own that which is shared [and/or rights to its distribution].
Your inability to fathom the simple and instead having the predilection to encompass it within flowery rhetoric is either the artifice of the 'flamer' as was alluded to, or just pig-headed indifference.
The only reason P2P was not outlawed was the presence of [some] legitimate uses/users for it, as mentioned ages ago.
The definition of what is 'good' and 'bad' use pertains to IP and Copyright Law.
Before you feel the need for further hearth-stoking .... fathom the depths of IP and Copyright Law. It'll help....
maxholder
Reply #189 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:35 PM
but that would take inclination on my part cougent and what motivation is there to be had in explaining to a man that cannot tell the difference between an argument and a flame, that seeks to argue both sides of an issue and still be taken seriously and hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. perhaps your own self-description is the limit of your perceptive capabilities in this discussion.
Reply #189 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:35 PM
| Oh I know, you have said something, I am just too desnse to understand it. OK, then simplify it for us old thick headed morons and re-state your position. |
but that would take inclination on my part cougent and what motivation is there to be had in explaining to a man that cannot tell the difference between an argument and a flame, that seeks to argue both sides of an issue and still be taken seriously and hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. perhaps your own self-description is the limit of your perceptive capabilities in this discussion.
maxholder
Reply #190 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:13 PM
no less a personal attack than the quote that it was responding to admin jafo. but then you have consistently presented a one-eyed perspective throughout this discussion. non?
your ineptitude in being able to distinguish between the 'artifice of a flame' and the fact that my own position may lay outside of your own two dimensional world view and your inability to take responsibility for your own immoral behavior during this discussion simply reflects that you have more in common with slugs than you first thought.
Reply #190 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:13 PM
| Cute, perhaps eloquent but ultimately a personal attack....tempered only by 'perhaps'. |
no less a personal attack than the quote that it was responding to admin jafo. but then you have consistently presented a one-eyed perspective throughout this discussion. non?
your ineptitude in being able to distinguish between the 'artifice of a flame' and the fact that my own position may lay outside of your own two dimensional world view and your inability to take responsibility for your own immoral behavior during this discussion simply reflects that you have more in common with slugs than you first thought.
maxholder
Reply #191 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:43 PM
Reply #191 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:43 PM
why thank you for reposting my reply ka806. since both cougent and admin jafo repeatedly requested the details of an argument that i had previously outlined i thought perhaps it might help to clarify my postion in detail. it is true there is a complexity to its content but then as i have reiterated throughout this discussion that is the very nature of this argument. perhaps if you break it down into single syllables it might help.
maxholder
Reply #192 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 11:24 PM
Reply #192 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 11:24 PM
[quoteLastly, would you mind answering a few questions... since you have admitted that the profile info is not you...
1. do you use filesharing to get music, movies, software?
information wants to be free cougent - but then you already knew that.
2. are you young?
old enough to recognize a room full of moral prigs cougent.
3. do you produce or create any music, movies or software?
i'm a student cougent. when it comes to music, movies or software the world's my oyster - which is nice, non?
4. do you give it away or do you try to sell it for profit?
i do so love to share cougent don't you - no.. i suppose you don't that's.. why that's your loss, non?
1. do you use filesharing to get music, movies, software?
information wants to be free cougent - but then you already knew that.
2. are you young?
old enough to recognize a room full of moral prigs cougent.
3. do you produce or create any music, movies or software?
i'm a student cougent. when it comes to music, movies or software the world's my oyster - which is nice, non?
4. do you give it away or do you try to sell it for profit?
i do so love to share cougent don't you - no.. i suppose you don't that's.. why that's your loss, non?
Bichur
Reply #193 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 11:46 PM
Reply #193 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 11:46 PM
This is funny stuff 
Takes the ole 'if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance...' to nice level.
Takes the ole 'if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance...' to nice level.
Jafo
Reply #194 Thursday, July 7, 2005 1:40 AM
Reply #194 Thursday, July 7, 2005 1:40 AM
| i do so love to share cougent don't you - no.. i suppose you don't that's.. why that's your loss, non? |
Ah...all rolled up into one cosy nutshell.
Those who respect property and property rights will, I trust, 'hope' that what is shared is infact yours to share.
Therein lies the rub.
Time to move on. This is definitely a lost cause.
maxholder
Reply #195 Thursday, July 7, 2005 1:56 AM
Reply #195 Thursday, July 7, 2005 1:56 AM
perhaps if you are so easily baffled bichur it is because at no point in this discussion have i chosen to take a position on the morality of the issue of p2p filesharing. if my response to cougent bespeaks otherwise then you have misunderstood its irony.
whatever one feels about the right or wrong of file sharing does not change the pragmatic reality that it is widespread, that it is almost impossible to contain and, as i have repeatedly argued. 'the inherent difficulties involved in enforcing laws and regulating a medium in which the very technology upon which ownership is based continually enables the boundaries of that intellectual property to be undermined.'
obsessively reiterating that the moral 'right or wrong' of this case can be easily defined does not change the fact that this situation exists and is here to stay for the forseeable future. any discussion that genuinely seeks to understand the complexities inherent in this issue as have already been outlined by myself and others therefore will not limit itself to framing the discourse in simplistic moral certainties.
whatever one feels about the right or wrong of file sharing does not change the pragmatic reality that it is widespread, that it is almost impossible to contain and, as i have repeatedly argued. 'the inherent difficulties involved in enforcing laws and regulating a medium in which the very technology upon which ownership is based continually enables the boundaries of that intellectual property to be undermined.'
obsessively reiterating that the moral 'right or wrong' of this case can be easily defined does not change the fact that this situation exists and is here to stay for the forseeable future. any discussion that genuinely seeks to understand the complexities inherent in this issue as have already been outlined by myself and others therefore will not limit itself to framing the discourse in simplistic moral certainties.
maxholder
Reply #196 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:19 AM
how could it not be admin jafo since my reply was in response to cougent's own inquiry as to whether i share my own creative efforts? slugs it would seem are easily confused.
but.. isn't this the second time you have chosen to exit this discussion admin jafo? one begins to think that you also have an inability to make a distinction between 'walking the walk' and 'talking the talk'. only time will tell.
Reply #196 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:19 AM
| Those who respect property and property rights will, I trust, 'hope' that what is shared is infact yours to share. |
how could it not be admin jafo since my reply was in response to cougent's own inquiry as to whether i share my own creative efforts? slugs it would seem are easily confused.
| Time to move on. |
but.. isn't this the second time you have chosen to exit this discussion admin jafo? one begins to think that you also have an inability to make a distinction between 'walking the walk' and 'talking the talk'. only time will tell.
Bichur
Reply #197 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:29 AM
At least we both agree I wasn't dazzled.
Reply #197 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:29 AM
| perhaps if you are so easily baffled bichur |
At least we both agree I wasn't dazzled.
Bichur
Reply #198 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:36 AM
I misunderstand very little. You incorrectly presumed I was referring to one post.
Reply #198 Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:36 AM
| if my response to cougent bespeaks otherwise then you have misunderstood its irony. |
I misunderstand very little. You incorrectly presumed I was referring to one post.
maxholder
Reply #199 Thursday, July 7, 2005 3:09 AM
far be it for me to assume your intellectual capabilities bichur. in order to be dazzled one would need to be capable of understanding what exactly it is one is being dazzled by in the first place, non?
your own presumptions regarding my intentions however do little but reveal your own inadequacies.
but bichur.. how can one presume incorrectly when the sentence you refer to is qualified by an 'if'. the statement was not declarative it was speculative. it would seem your actual capacity to misunderstand is at odds with your claims but then that appears to be a characterising trait for many in this discussion, non?
Reply #199 Thursday, July 7, 2005 3:09 AM
| At least we both agree I wasn't dazzled. |
far be it for me to assume your intellectual capabilities bichur. in order to be dazzled one would need to be capable of understanding what exactly it is one is being dazzled by in the first place, non?
your own presumptions regarding my intentions however do little but reveal your own inadequacies.
| I misunderstand very little. You incorrectly presumed I was referring to one post. |
but bichur.. how can one presume incorrectly when the sentence you refer to is qualified by an 'if'. the statement was not declarative it was speculative. it would seem your actual capacity to misunderstand is at odds with your claims but then that appears to be a characterising trait for many in this discussion, non?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 10 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #181 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:58 AM