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 3 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #43 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:57 PM
| Don't punish me for their transgressions |
Blame the transgressors, not those who are forced to deal with them.
It's not an 'idiot ruling'...it is a response to 'idiot thieves'.
Sure such things affect the 'innocent'...as collateral damage, as does ALL laws and regulations and erstwhile restrictions/limitations. It's a fact of societal life, deal with it.
Those who try to dismiss or or call the restrictions/laws 'unfair' are effectively giving credence to the law-breakers....as if they were a latter-day Robin Hood.....stealing from the corporate 'rich' to give to the 'needy'.
The 'needy' are not 'needy' at all....they are 'wantie'.
Therein lies the difference.
Reply #44 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:09 PM
Same goes for software. As michael havard pointed out: Most people who pirate (doesn't matter if its software, music or whatever) wouldn't buy it in the first place. Thus it's really hard to put a true number on losses.
Then there is the whole argument of "hey if i like the pirated version i do buy the original", especially if there is no demo version (or a severely crippled one). I've seen it happen (actually did it myself a few times), but again: does it make a difference? Who knows.
To everyone who thinks intellectual property is silly I can only say this: You basically say that purely immaterial things should be free? Musicians get paid how, then? Artist? And so on. Of course, in particular cases intellectual property just plain hinders development. Think about patenting software algorithms. All nice and dandy in theory. Practically it gets a little silly: Amazon's various shopping cart patents are a prime example.
Anyway. Whether or not pirating hurts the bottom line is pointless. This ruling just extends already common practice: A webhosting company would not get sued for UNKNOWINGLY hosting illegal content. They WOULD get sued if someone pointed the fact out to them and they didn't act. And ISP would not get sued for unknowingly aiding in transmission of illegal content. Grokster, Kazaa and pretty much every CENTRALIZED file sharing company were aware of the fact that their customers used their services to share illegal content. And they did nothing to counteract that. THATS why they got in hot water, and deservedly so.
An equivalent would be this case: Someone borrows your tools to steal your neighbors cable TV connection. As long as you are not aware of the intended use of your tools, you're safe. But if you give him the tools KNOWING that he intends to splice into your neighbors cable, you're in trouble as an accomplice. Makes sense, does it?
Reply #45 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:26 PM
| They're bought because they can go over the posted limits. |
I thought they were bought to get from point A to point B. Shoot, I can go over the speed limit on my skate board on a down hill. It is not the vehicle that speeds, it's the person that drives it.
| Libraries loan books out by the million. Should they be shut down because they're allowing people to read materials without paying for them? |
You really don’t have a clue on what you type. Even book authors donate their books to the libraries free of charge. And the books are loaned to the public not given to them.
| You have people here charging for bloody cursors and icons. What started as a fun pastime is now all about "premium" this and "pro" that. It figures you would hate file sharing so much. |
I’m sure you would too the day you actually create something and have someone else profit out of your work without breaking a sweat. Be thankful that these authors actually share a lot of their work for free and not charge for every little graphic they make.
| Yeah, when you're forty years old and disabled with a debilitating liver disease you're just the top of the resume pile. |
So what you are saying is that middle age people with disability or illness should get things for free.
There will always be two opinions on this issue. One from the creators that make a living out of their work and one from the ones that just wants to freely take other people's work.
Reply #46 Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:17 AM
| Hey man, I'm with you in intent. Stopping or lessening wholesale piracy would be great. As would the destruction of the euphemistic "sharing" term which is of course stealing. I put food on my table based upon software sales too. But... Decisions for what or a person or company can be held liable for now depends upon what other people do with their product? Um, ok. Is posting a note on your sales brochure "Not intended for transfer of copyrighted material" good enough? If not, what is? Is there any concrete criteria that could indicate to a developer ahead of time what they are doing is "illegal"? Or does someone like Bram Cohen have to pray people don't pirate games with his software. After all if they do, he's a bad man who is facilitating in wholesale piracy and theft. On the other hand if people only use it for legit purposes - he's a really smart guy who developed a working mechanism for content distribution for people without dedicated servers and big $$$. This line of common sense of course is totally secondary to the facts that US law doesn't mean jack in other countries, there is no person or company to sue for open source projects, and people who want pirate will not be inconvenienced by this in the slightest. Good lord what a ludicrous thing to pass. My beautiful country is losing its mind. |
That pretty much sums it up. All of you people that disagree with this aspect (unless your for file sharing) have no damn clue about what law is and how the law works, and how close people and companies are willing to go to the unlawful side of things, without it actually being unlawful. Thats why we have lawyers. This ruling is retarded at best and simply too vague to stand up in court. It sound more like the Supreme court was just jerking somebodies leg really.
Yeah and I do appreciate it if slander was'nt used......especially by a website that "shares" some OSX styles and ideas that were blatently ripped off. I would think its common nature that skinning sites such as this HIGHLY oppose the notion of "intellectual property".
Reply #47 Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:20 AM
| There will always be two opinions on this issue. One from the creators that make a living out of their work and one from the ones that just wants to freely take other people's work. |
actually apocalypse67 you may be right. the reason i download your skin or anybody elses here at wincustomize is because it is free. which means i and the majority of other downloaders at this site fall into the latter category does it not?
Reply #48 Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:32 AM
They dont have a halo around their head, and neither do you. Its just that some people dont believe in the notion of Intellectual Property, In fact some countries dont believe in the concept of IP. Its not that difficult a concept to grasp. If someone dooesnt feel they should pay for an artistic creation, then they shouldnt. That was and is the whole point of art. Art is not made by money, and to think otherwise is straigt crap.
Hell yeah I download songs, and I always will. I buy lots of albums when I feel the artist deserves it. I refuse to buy the Massacre because I think 50 cent's lyrics are trash. But I like the beats on one of songs, so I download it.
People have lost sight of what art or anything is in the face of money. And I will be the first on to say stfu.
In fact to all of you guys calling file sharers evil, let be known that in ethics, file swapping is only unethical because and only because it is illegal, NOT the other way around. This is what is agreed upon in the ethical community.
Reply #49 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:07 AM
| was and is the whole point of art. Art is not made by money, and to think otherwise is straigt crap. |
Oh...what utter bull-shit.
Go 'admire' your ART in a Gallery....[assuming there is no entry fee]...or spend serious money to 'own' it in your own home....that's a fact of life, and always has been. You DO realise that those great works of the Masters that people admire so much were 'commissioned'.....look it up...it's under 'c'.
There's nothing new and wonderful about 'digital art'.....just because it's post baby-boomer technology doesn't alter the rights of its creator to protect what is his.
Being ABLE TO 'get it for nothing' is THEFT, unless you are getting it from its owner.
And no, you do not OWN that copy of Photoshop, you bought a license to use it...and that is limited use.
What 'can' just as easily happen is.... enough people who create these artworks called 'skins' FOR YOU will begin to see their 'intellectual property' is treated so lightly by those freely downloading it that they will decide..."enough of this crap. My work is not 'valued' ergo I will NOT SHARE IT".
Frankly....once the 'freely accessible' is no longer such, well...tough titties for those left staring at an unadorned computer screen.
Reply #50 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:16 AM
| In fact to all of you guys calling file sharers evil, let be known that in ethics, file swapping is only unethical because and only because it is illegal, NOT the other way around. This is what is agreed upon in the ethical community. |
Society determines what is or is not Lawful, and likewise 'ethical'.
Unfortunately, for 'file-sharers' they actually are in the minority within society, which has determined that 'some' of their actions are not acceptable and has ruled such.
It's frustrating when those who 'know it all' as young adults have their dreams dashed by old bastards called Judges, etc....with legal professionals all seemingly brainless old farts....but strangely they, too were young[er] once and yet are actually still human and members of the same society as the rest of us...and shock-horror...[mostly] more extensively educated/experienced....certainly in property law.
Reply #51 Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:58 AM
| actually apocalypse67 you may be right. the reason i download your skin or anybody elses here at wincustomize is because it is free. which means i and the majority of other downloaders at this site fall into the latter category does it not? |
Not really. The reason why you and all other users can download these skins for free is because I (as all other authors)CHOOSE to share our work for free, it's a lot different than if I create a skin for the purpose of selling it and have someone take it and distribute it for free.
Reply #52 Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:08 AM
Also not that i condone piracy, p2p did have a use when it came to finding songs/video that are old say little known songs from 20 years or more. I used it mainly to find songs that i could not on the pay services or the record stores because they are just not available anymore. Again i am not saying i am for piracy.
Reply #53 Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:21 AM
| a person will no longer automatically own rights to their own contracted pictures, say for example weddings. |
In Australia the photographer 'owns' the pictures.....usually after x amount of years he'll offer them to the 'subject'....including negatives, that is...
Architectural Drawings remain the property of the designer. The 'client' purchases rights to their use...and that is ONLY to their intended use...ie...to build the subject property. They do not buy distribution [on-selling] rights [unless that's specifically contracted]...
Reply #54 Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:22 AM
The architect also retains image rights, as in: the use of his/her building as imagery by others. Not quite sure about the specifics, but it runs quite deep. I think it flows from the definition of copyright.
Reply #55 Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:09 AM
| Society determines what is or is not Lawful, and likewise 'ethical'. Unfortunately, for 'file-sharers' they actually are in the minority within society, which has determined that 'some' of their actions are not acceptable and has ruled such. |
Well gee now I get it. So you're saying that if I can convince 51% of society to agree that stealing intellectual property is legal and get it put into law (but I don't convince you), you would just up and let me steal everything you've ever made?
Sorry, but I somehow don't think that you would like that.
Morality has nothing to do with what is currently "popular". There is right, there is wrong, black, and white. It doesn't change.
Now that I've stated that, I wholeheartedly agree that stealing someone's work, whether it be material, or immaterial (IP) is illegal. So why do I think file-sharing is not only legal, but a good thing?
For the exact same reason that I think the service this website offers is a good thing. This website offers hosting of people's artwork so that other people can obtain it. Some artwork is free, some is not. That's fine with me. But your site can be used to host illegal content, or to faccilitate stealing. In fact, I would bet that the hardware and software used for this site is actually used for an illegal warez site somewhere else, completely unrelated.
Does that make the hardware and software used to run your site illegal? No. Why? Because the author/creator made the software for a purpose. It's just that someone decided to use it for something illegal.
Same thing is happening in this case. File-sharing software in general is not made to steal IP. It is meant to share files. Sure, it makes stealing IP easy, but so does the Windows "copy file" function. Sure, people use file-sharing for illegal purposed, same as the Windows "copy file" function. Does that mean that the creator was evil and wanted people to steal using his software? No.
The instant you let the users determine your "intent" for creating a tool, is the instant you take free choice away from the creator. The original creator of the gun I'm sure meant to use it to protect the people he was protecting. But guess what? The majority of guns today are used to kill innocent people, or to oppress or keep under oppression, those who should be free. Does that suddenly change the intent of the gun's creator to match the majority of the users? NO. The original intent of the creator is the same. No ammount of illegal (or even legal) activity caused by that tool will ever change original intent, as good or bad as it might have been.
Remember, software doesn't copy and steal IP, people copy and steal IP.
I'm saddend with how many people can't make this distinction.
Reply #56 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:11 AM
| Oh...what utter bull-shit. Go 'admire' your ART in a Gallery....[assuming there is no entry fee]...or spend serious money to 'own' it in your own home....that's a fact of life, and always has been. You DO realise that those great works of the Masters that people admire so much were 'commissioned'.....look it up...it's under 'c'. There's nothing new and wonderful about 'digital art'.....just because it's post baby-boomer technology doesn't alter the rights of its creator to protect what is his. Being ABLE TO 'get it for nothing' is THEFT, unless you are getting it from its owner. And no, you do not OWN that copy of Photoshop, you bought a license to use it...and that is limited use. What 'can' just as easily happen is.... enough people who create these artworks called 'skins' FOR YOU will begin to see their 'intellectual property' is treated so lightly by those freely downloading it that they will decide..."enough of this crap. My work is not 'valued' ergo I will NOT SHARE IT". Frankly....once the 'freely accessible' is no longer such, well...tough titties for those left staring at an unadorned computer screen. |
Well I wont go around saying what other people is saying is utter bull-shit, but I will say that you misinterpreted what I was saying. Of course claiming that owning such and such painting should cost money. Its a thing.
But the point of art is not to make money, but to pass along something which can be enjoyed and observed by other people. If you think that the Renaissance started because of money, then you my friend are bull-shit
Reply #57 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:26 AM
| Society determines what is or is not Lawful, and likewise 'ethical'. Unfortunately, for 'file-sharers' they actually are in the minority within society, which has determined that 'some' of their actions are not acceptable and has ruled such. It's frustrating when those who 'know it all' as young adults have their dreams dashed by old bastards called Judges, etc....with legal professionals all seemingly brainless old farts....but strangely they, too were young[er] once and yet are actually still human and members of the same society as the rest of us...and shock-horror...[mostly] more extensively educated/experienced....certainly in property law. |
Ummm pretty much everything youve said there is just plain wrong.
No society doesnt not determine what is lawful, lawmakers determine what is lawful. In america we dont all sit down in a happy little room and say this is against the law or this is not. I know many 'societies' near where I live would make marijuana legal............but they cant.
No society doesnt determine what is ethical, that just makes no sense any way you look at it. Ethics is the application of moral values, goverened by absolutes that we as a people havent understood completely yet. Ethica guidelines at this point and time are based off many different ethical principles that were established by great philosophers like Kant and Socrates.
Im sorry but too me, your just spitting shit right now because you do fail to understand that NOT everyone believes in the concept of Intellectual Property. Heck many countries ....COUNTRIES... dont enforce Intelectual Property laws because they just dont believe in them. In the ethical community, it is WELL KNOWN that file swapping is unethical, because, AND ONLY BECAUSE it is illegal. It in no ways links back to theivery or morality, or anything of the such.
Not everyone believes in Intellectual Property. Accept it and STFU. Or dont support this website, which post up skins that blatently rip off Mac and Linux styles. If your that 'pure' then get the hell outta here.
I buy most of my music, and Ill say im am seriously sick and tired of you guys and your soap boxes
Reply #58 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:33 AM
| But the point of art is not to make money, but to pass along something which can be enjoyed and observed by other people. |
This descition is up to the artist/creator not up to the general public to decide what is free to view/observed/obtained. As an artist it's my sole descition to create something of my own imagination using my hands and tools to render a final product and it is that same determination that will make me choose to share it for free with the general public. But if I choose to create any art piece for the purpose of profit, there is none that can tell me I can't do that because it should be free nor gives anyone the right to take that piece, reproduce it and distribute it with out my concent.
This is the fine line that separates those with moral values and respect for others and those with lack of it.
Reply #59 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:37 AM
As for the soap boxes, it seems to me that you've been on yours quite a bit here.
Reply #60 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:44 AM
| I buy most of my music, and Ill say im am seriously sick and tired of you guys and your soap boxes |
Ahh, in a perfect society you can just browse out of this page and free your self from the soap boxes.
And I would love to see your reaction if you was ever to create something of your own to earn a living and I would come along and take what you have made and give it out for free. Hell, I can even pass it as my own creation since you dont believe in Intellectual Property.
A problem is not a problem until it becomes yours.
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 3 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:52 PM
The books are bought and paid for or donate. They are not copied or illegally reproduced. The ruling doesn't say you can watch a movie or listen to music for free. It says you can't do it in an illegal manner.