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 8 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #142 Monday, July 4, 2005 4:52 PM
| you are comparing apples to oranges. GM could make and advertise a Corvette that reaches 300 MPH that still does not change the country's speed limit... Common sense will tell a person that there are laws to abide by and the consequences of breaking those laws. |
it would appear you are not a little averse to confusing two distinct phenomena yourself apocalypse67. in this case the conflation of technolgy and practice. on the one hand you argue for this distinction in regards to sembetu's corvette example - that it is not the technology (or indeed even how it is advertised) but how it is used. and then you conflate the process - 'illegal sharing/downloading files' and the medium that enables that - p2p - as one and the same thing.
as the point has been made previously the issue the mgm/grokster court ruling was addressing was not simply one of illegal filesharing but rather the software that enables this - p2p and whether the two can be defined as one and the same. importantly unlike your own argument, it makes a clear distinction between the medium and the message. perhaps craeonics articulated this point with the most perceptive clarity:
| Looking beyond the oversimplification the media presents us with and which the average idiot takes for granted, the actual argumentation by the judges is interesting: "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" Note my emphasis. Judging from that bit, it's not so much the file-sharing which it speaks out against, but rather the active promotion of ones app to use it for copyrighted material sharing purposes. |
my understanding of sembetu's argument is that there appears to be a discrepancy between the courts ruling and actual commercial practice - an observation that at the very least (as previous respondents have noted) reveals ambiguity if not a little - albeit inadvertent - hypocrisy.
perhaps if we are to move beyond the 'oversimplification which the 'average idiot takes for granted' it might help to acknowledge the finer nuances of the argument in the first place. non?
Reply #143 Monday, July 4, 2005 7:28 PM
'Finer nuance' is a cute term for finding the spin of justification for property theft.
P2P in itself is not illegal. What it's most commonly used for is.
Reply #144 Monday, July 4, 2005 8:25 PM
| 'Finer nuance' is a cute term for finding the spin of justification for property theft. P2P in itself is not illegal. What it's most commonly used for is. |
that interpretation is subjective and entirely yours admin jafo. according to the court ruling however, which afterall is one aspect of the civil society which you have so pedantically championed, finer nuances apparently appear to count. on the one hand it would seem you wish to argue for the authority of established institutions whilst on the other reinterpreting their decisions and dismissing that which does not fit into your preconceived notions of the way things 'should' be. perhaps the desire to contain opposing thoughts and represent them as one is another of those defining elements of age that you so like to refer to.
Reply #145 Monday, July 4, 2005 8:43 PM
| really cougent. perhaps one cannot doubt your affinity for binaristic oppositions afterall. on the one hand you claim that p2p filesharing will be stopped and yet at the same time you state that for every technology there is a counter technology that perpetuates a 'constant game of "one upmanship". a logicality that seeks to argue both extremes and still be taken seriously. how novel. is that something that comes with age as well? |
Ahh to be young and know everything again...
To deny the ever increasing advance of technology would be ... well "senile".
Napster in its original form existed for a while and then went away.
Kazaa, Morpheous, etc. have had a good run now for a while; but I believe their days are now numbered.
BitTorrent is not yet on the law enforcement radar, so it will still have time to thrive.
BUT, it too shall pass.
Microsoft is already working on their own version of it, and a counter to it.
Will there be something after BT? Of course.
Will it too then be engineered or prosecuted out of existence? Of course it will.
As long as their is a demand for "thieves tools" someone will create or provide them, but corporate America and the judicial system will just as eagerly continue to pursue and stop them.
Perhaps it is something that comes with age to be able to see (not agree with) multiple sides of an issue. Perhaps it is just a talent of the young to be able to see only one side and know it is right simply because they want it to be.
Reply #146 Monday, July 4, 2005 8:46 PM
| on the one hand it would seem you wish to argue for the authority of established institutions whilst on the other reinterpreting their decisions and dismissing that which does not fit into your preconceived notions of the way things 'should' be. |
Elucidate.
Reply #147 Monday, July 4, 2005 10:52 PM
As it stands right now, illegal copying, sharing and downloading of material that is not your own work is against the law and it is punishable. No buts no if's.
Having a website or providing a way where such material is been exchange makes a person liable.
And no matter how many arguments might spark or how many comparisons to automobiles, guns, etc might arise it's not going to change the Supreme Court decision. Period.
Reply #148 Monday, July 4, 2005 11:04 PM
finer nuance refers to the distinction between actual technology and practice, a distinction that the court obviously feels equally of importance and that has otherwise oft been elided in this discussion. finer nuance refers to the court's emphasis instead upon the ability to prove promotion of p2p software to infringe copyright rather than the process that that technology actually enables. finer nuance refers to how problematic this distinction may be in interpreting let alone in enforcing. finer nuance refers to the contradiction inherent within this ruling in regard to already pre-existing conventions of commercial promotion as highlighted by sembetu. finer nuance refers to the problematic of defining 'ownership' in an age where the very technology upon which that ownership is based continually threatens to undermine the boundaries of possession and control.
by continually reiterating your position admin jafo in singular moralistic terms that defines p2p filesharing purely in terms of theft does little for exploring the complexities of these issues other than to proscribe their frames of reference. further, by defining your argument as you have done in previous posts by the legitimacy of social institutions and then reductively reinterpreting and dismissing the complexity of this case as characterised by the courts own ruling is arguably an act of narrow minded ignorance or hypocrisy.
Reply #149 Monday, July 4, 2005 11:23 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake it's not complicated.
File sharing as a concept CAN be legal. The legality stems from the appropriate OWNERSHIP of that which is being shared.
The courts can rule that P2P is not a problem, only what it is used FOR. IF it is used to distribute property against the wishes of the property owner then it is a medium being used to facilitate theft.....and is identical to the person sitting in the Cinema with his video camera making a 'copy'.
In that case it can be determined that using the video camera in a Cinema for such end is 'illegal'. [simply because you WANT a copy does not make it just, legal, OR right].
It does NOT mean that using a video camera is illegal, or that a camera user is evil or any OTHER such tripe you attempt to ascribe to my comments.
HOW you use it is the problem.
HOW you break a speed-limit in a souped-up car is the problem.
WHAT you do with that 'legally-purchased' gun is the problem.
WHAT you do with that 'legally-purchased' software is the problem.
YOU can break the law by selling a burnt copy of it on a street corner.
YOU can break the law by giving it away freely on a street corner.
YOU can break the law by giving it away freely on P2P.
So what if the courts were/are lamenting the complexities of restricting P2P to legitimate use. Yes, that's hard...how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable?
The difficulty isn't moral or ethical it's simply logistical.
Reply #150 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:46 AM
| The difficulty isn't moral or ethical it's simply logistical. |
why yes admin jafo. it would seem you have the capability of grasping the finer nuances of this argument afterall. however, as the court ruling implies, the solution, or 'logistics' as you put it, involved in resolving this issue i would hardly define as simple.
| So what if the courts were/are lamenting the complexities of restricting P2P to legitimate use. Yes, that's hard...how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable? |
because admin jafo it is those same complexities that make the claims of moral victory by mgm, the moralizing that has come to characterize so much of this discussion, and even, as others have observed, the outcome of the court ruling ultimately redundant. how does one control something 'virtually uncontrollable' besides endless reiterating that it is wrong?
Reply #151 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:51 AM
| Having a website or providing a way where such material is been exchange makes a person liable. |
which part of that sentence do you think doesn't quite resonate with the court ruling apocalypse67?
Reply #152 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 1:08 AM
| Perhaps it is something that comes with age to be able to see (not agree with) multiple sides of an issue. Perhaps it is just a talent of the young to be able to see only one side and know it is right simply because they want it to be. |
since you choose to quote me cougent i assume your observations are also a response to my own discourse. so.. what exactly is this 'only one side and know it to be right simply because i want it to be' do you think is applicable to my argument? indeed exactly 'which' side do you think it is that i am defending and haven't we already been through this?
Reply #153 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 1:26 AM
| and haven't we already been through this? |
Heavens no. I'm sure there's a million more ways for those-who-want-ALL-uses-of-P2P-to-remain-legitimate to explain why they are NOT guilty of theft.
If it's put into the 'too hard' basket by legislators then one of two things will happen. Either affected Companies/entities will force prohibitive costs and or usage limitations/difficulties upon their customers....[think Product Activation].
Or...
The process of file-sharing will be criminalized, irrespective of legitimacy....[somewhat unfortunate, but it is ALWAYS the people who break the rules who ruin it for those who don't].
When an engine exists which enables criminality it is usually dealt with via prohibition or restriction.
Reply #154 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:02 AM
| and haven't we already been through this? |
i believe you are taking me out of context admin jafo. that reply was self-evidently directed towards cougent which i am sure he is quite capable of answering himself.
the context of your own argument however remains the same. as long as you choose to construct this dialogue in binary terms then no doubt you will also continue to see my own position as that of an apologist for illegal file sharing. i dont' really know how many ways one can say that i have not and do not refute the legality of your own position. neither do i know of how many ways one can argue that the complexity of the issues involved in this case lie beyond simplistic moralizing.
| If it's put into the 'too hard' basket by legislators then one of two things will happen. Either affected Companies/entities will force prohibitive costs and or usage limitations/difficulties upon their customers....[think Product Activation]. |
think open source.
| The process of file-sharing will be criminalized, irrespective of legitimacy.... |
and as you yourself have observed admin jafo '.how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable'
perhaps one can sympathize with your need to reduce this issue to one of simplistic morality. things are so much simpler when they're black and white, non?
Reply #155 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:34 AM
Reply #156 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 3:11 AM
Reply #157 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 6:42 AM
So there's some OTHER reason for this woolly-headed thinking ....
So...you are not who you say you are...and your opinions probably belong to someone else as well....bit pointless, really.
Anonymity is for children....[always good to protect the innocent]. With adults it's generally because they're up to 'no good'.
I'm out of this conversation now, simply because I don't debate with the faceless.
You either stand up to be heard as a valid individual with a valid opinion or you remain nefarious and unaccountable and uncounted.
Seeya.
Reply #158 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 6:55 AM
UserID: 267887
Real Name: max holder
Email: xxxxx@ihug.co.nz
Member Since: 5/26/2002
Let's hope Mister Holder is aware of his account being used by a third party. If not then things needs must be adjusted....'non'?
Reply #159 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 10:04 AM
| since you choose to quote me cougent i assume your observations are also a response to my own discourse. so.. what exactly is this 'only one side and know it to be right simply because i want it to be' do you think is applicable to my argument? indeed exactly 'which' side do you think it is that i am defending and haven't we already been through this? |
I think you are defending (or trying to justify) your undoubtedly large collection of stolen music, movies and software. Is that plain enough for you?
I have NONE of the above (rebuffing another user earlier who suggested we all do) and I have the credit card debt to prove it!
And with that I follow Admin Jafo's lead and bid you farewell, I too find it a waste of time to debate someone who hides from reality.
Reply #160 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:41 PM
| So...you are not who you say you are.. |
and exactly who do i say i am admin jafo? i do not believe i have at any time attempted to deny i am anything i am not. the very fact that i chose to address your assumption about my nationality would bespeak this. the fact that this is neither my computer, nor my name does not mean i am not related to the person who that actually is or indeed that some kind of deception is being intentionally promoted.
the fact that i am operating under a pseudonym is not only a convention of message board forums and a reflection of the norm but also fundamental characteristic of the medium in which you have shown so little grasp of. the very nature of the net is that one never knows with certainty who one is speaking to. the fact that you act as if this were not the case has little do with reality and everything to do with rigidity of your own beliefs. the fact that i am not who you have assumed me to be has little to do with pretending to be someone else and everything to do with expediency. we are both students and we both share the same space.
the fact that appearance in terms of my identity is more important than the actual content of my argument merely confirms the superficiality of your own response to this dialogue admin jafo.
once more you choose to interpret as 'fact' what are erroneous assumptions about a situation which reflect your predisposition to seeing the world the way you imagine it to be rather than the way it actually is.
more disturbingly, particularly for other subscribers of this site is the fact that you feel entitled to disclosing private information justified upon your own ill-conceived assumptions. i have not broken any rules admin jafo that would justify your breach of trust other than to disclose what is transparent and the behavioural norm for the majority - we write under nom de plumes.
your own authoritarian response is simply in keeping with the pompous self-righteousness that has characterised so much of your dialogue throughout this conversation and reflects poorly upon this site.
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 8 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #141 Monday, July 4, 2005 12:29 PM
Here in Dade County (Miami, Fla) you get a ticket ranging from $50 to $120 depending on how many miles you are over the speed limit and in addition to that you get 2-4 points on your license (depending if you have previous infractions) collect enough points and you'll get a year suspension of your driving privileges.
If you don’t believe me, take a trip down here and push 100 MPH on the Florida turnpike. I'll guarantee you'll get a little more than a rush and a fast trip.