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 9 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #162 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 5:17 PM
| 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? |
it would seem cougenet that it is enough for you and others in this discussion to simply 'think' things are a certain way for them to be true without the need for actual evidence that would support your claims. on the one hand you claim the monopoly on being able to see 'multiple sides of an issue' and yet continue to act as if this issue were simply black and white; a for or against, a youth against the wisdom of age. you can talk the talk but apparently you cannot walk the walk.
rather it is enough to accuse me of theft simply because it suits your own bigoted position. one can but wonder who it is that is actually hiding from reality here.
Reply #163 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 5:22 PM
| Word of advice: It is not wise to anger Jafo |
and what relevance does that have to this conversation kona0197 other than to reinforce the authoritarian nature that has come to characterise this discourse?
Reply #164 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 7:00 PM
| it would seem cougenet that it is enough for you and others in this discussion to simply 'think' things are a certain way for them to be true without the need for actual evidence that would support your claims. |
Looks like we're forced to do that since people demand their anonymity and subterfuge.
No 'private' info was disclosed...infact your schoolfriend's email addy was removed. I think it's really a bit of an 'issue' that you are NOT using your own account to access the site as any adverse repercussions would impact upon its rightful 'owner'.
It seems this cavalier approach to property rights extends to your roommate's 'belongings' and IDENTITY as well.
| 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. |
So...to hold an opposing view, one that reflects the opinion of the site's contributors [skinners] in general is now 'pompous self-righteousness'? It really sounds like you are simply out of step with reality, lost in the fantasy world of theoretical ideology.
Here's the thing....
Since your stance on life, the universe and the whole damn thing is that it's 'much less black and white', etc....what say you explain it for all the dumb klutzes out there like me? You haven't actually SAID anything yet, except refute others' postulations.
Oh....you better stick to simple words, too, just so we knuckle-draggers can keep up with the cognoscenti....particularly those who spell 'cougenet' so cogently...or did you mean as in Citizen cougent ?...
Reply #165 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:30 PM
| So...to hold an opposing view, one that reflects the opinion of the site's contributors [skinners] in general is now 'pompous self-righteousness'? |
i believe that description was used to describe your own conduct specifically admin jafo; an observation that your behavior would seem to so eloquently support. let the text speak for itself.
| It seems this cavalier approach to property rights extends to your roommate's 'belongings' and IDENTITY as well. |
once more you make moralistic assumptions about the nature of my sitution without fully knowing the facts. i have explained already how i have come to share this account name. there is no 'issue' as you put it. the rightful owner is my partner.
| No 'private' info was disclosed...infact your schoolfriend's email addy was removed. I think it's really a bit of an 'issue' that you are NOT using your own account to access the site as any adverse repercussions would impact upon its rightful 'owner' |
the fact that you chose to disclose his name without his consent simply reflects the lack of respect for his personal privacy that you feel you have the right to breach. preaching the morality of ownership whilst feeling one has the right to disclose information without the consent of the owner - no matter how insignificant that maybe to you - simply reflects a hypocritical arrogance and your own 'cavalier' attitude towards the very people you claim to have a responsibility in representing - the members of this site.
| Since your stance on life, the universe and the whole damn thing is that it's 'much less black and white', etc....what say you explain it for all the dumb klutzes out there like me? |
in reading back over this discussion admin jafo and the tired repetitiveness of your own and other's knee-jerk responses one suspects it would be easier to resolve the p2p issue first.
i have not and do not claim to have the answers admin jafo. i have simply argued that the issue of file sharing has a complexity that goes beyond the simplistic morality that you and others have felt a need to continually frame this discussion in.
the conduct however with which you have engaged with this discussion; the peremptory way you have dismissed ideas that do not fit into your two dimensional view of the world however does speak for itself. the puerility of your need to draw attention to my spelling and the misrepresentation of information as facts that have been revealed to be assumptions being a case in point. perhaps it's time for you to dress those knuckles.
Reply #166 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:46 PM
| the fact that you chose to disclose his name without his consent simply reflects the lack of respect for his personal privacy that you feel you have the right to breach. preaching the morality of ownership whilst feeling one has the right to disclose information without the consent of the owner - no matter how insignificant that maybe to you - simply reflects a hypocritical arrogance and your own 'cavalier' attitude towards the very people you claim to have a responsibility in representing - the members of this site. |
Vasgo - sorry to tell you but anyone can look up your user details simply by clicking on your name. Those user details are not private.
Reply #167 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 8:54 PM
| it would be easier to resolve the p2p issue first. |
The p2p issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court, there is nothing you, me, jafo or anyone here at the forum can say that will change the ruling. Continuance of arguments would be like beating a dead horse.
But I do find it odd that a highly opinioned person such as you would hide or engage in such prolonged debate under someone else's account. Call me controversial but if I am to vent my opinions on any particular issue, I want those involved in the debate to know who I am and where I stand.
Reply #168 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:03 PM
vasgo ...so...the "issue of file sharing has a complexity that goes beyond the simplistic morality that you and others have felt a need to continually frame this discussion in"....and it is SO complex you can only allude to it without explaining or clarifying.
It is presumptuous to ascribe 'complexity' to the abjectly simple just to proclaim a higher sentience.
One and one equals two.....but learned philosophers will debate that actuality in terms of esotericity for hours on end but it does NOT alter the reality.
Hypothetical debates and mindgames of intellect do not assuage the real dynamics of society.
But, we're all waiting with baited breath while you expound upon, and plumb the depths of this complexity that only you can deduce.
The floor is yours.
Reply #169 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:08 PM
Re the anonymity of the nick, yes, any person logged onto this site can see the details...my editing of the email addy is called 'censorship for privacy and considered 'PC'', but essentially has little or no effect.
Clicking on my nick will bring up my genuine information and not that of a room-mate...
Reply #170 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:24 PM
1. The intellectual property argument is not the same as the copyrights argument. I would say put that argument somewhere else.
2. No the supreme court is not the gurus on life affairs. To say that the right choice is the one imposed by law is just stupid. They are those that impose the law. God forbid they follow some Kant's and Socrates ethical godlines.
3. This issue was not resolved. Did any of you actually read the ruling? Anyone who is promoting the sharing of copyrighted materials is subject to punishment. What the hell does that mean in law. Ill tell you what it means. Crap. This doesnt focus on people who profit from it, or people who use it or people who dont explicitly write software to prevent it, just people who promote it.
4. Just because its p2p doesnt mean its evil. If you think so then get off the iternet. There is a difference between kazaa and bittorrent. P2P is used for MUCH more than downloading copyrighted or patented material. The number of illegal stuff that is being transfered from person to person is non-exsistent to the legal stuff being sent. Dont forget that data used to encompass pornography, rare files, mix tapes, tv-shows, skits, comics, open software is being shared at a much higher rate.
5. This is a complex issue. You cant deny the fact that this has 170 comments. And you can call people theives all you want,but that wont help your credibility. In debates, name calling gets you knowhere. And saying that one person is right and that another is wrong in something like this leads to lots of bs posts.
Reply #171 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:42 PM
A debate is a formalized airing of opposing views...and the interesting aspect is that those views need not be actually held by the debaters at all.
What is really wanted here is not a 'debate' but a clarification, a pronouncement, if you will - a determination of what impact an isolated court ruling will have on the world at large.
Firstly, thanks to the AUS Supreme Court there's precedence for one country's 'determination' to impact on others outside that country's jurisdiction, due to the all-pervasiveness of the Internet.
It's of Global significance and reinforces the concepts/values of Copyrights and IP held to by Western society in general.
Think of the ruling as "oh, sh**, cars can go really bloody fast...we better impose some restrictions so people don't get 'hurt'".
I'd love to see the figures demonstrating that P2P is MORE commonly used for actual legitimate and legal reasons than copyright violation. My guess is they'd be vapourware...
Reply #172 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 12:43 AM
| Vasgo - sorry to tell you but anyone can look up your user details simply by clicking on your name. Those user details are not private. |
then perhaps you might wish to clarify the details of my 'nick' with those that admin jafo felt he had the right to disclose kona0197. if my partner had wished to share his actual name then that is his choice. he also has a right to privacy. it was not admin jafo's right to disclose that information since it was not his 'right to share' no matter how insignificant that information turned out to be. does this sound like a familiar argument?
Reply #173 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:15 AM
| The p2p issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court, there is nothing you, me, jafo or anyone here at the forum can say that will change the ruling. Continuance of arguments would be like beating a dead horse. |
i don't believe i have stated at any time that i disagree with the supreme court decision apocalypse67 let alone wishing to change it. i'm sure however the riaa, the games, the motion picture and the software industry will be greatly relieved to hear that the p2p issue has been resolved.
| But I do find it odd that a highly opinioned person such as you would hide or engage in such prolonged debate under someone else's account. Call me controversial but if I am to vent my opinions on any particular issue, I want those involved in the debate to know who I am and where I stand. |
well yes i suppose it might appear odd why i would 'engage in such a prolonged debate under someone else's account and then disclose publicly that i am not that person. obviously i have something to hide. or perhaps it says more about the person who cannot make that distinction. perhaps as this discussion has revealed the distinction is to subtle.
Reply #175 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:38 AM
| It is presumptuous to ascribe 'complexity' to the abjectly simple just to proclaim a higher sentience. |
that this is yours and other's experience has been only too well expressed throughout this discussion admin jafo. however the 'complexity' that i so 'presumptuously ascribe', has, unlike your own position, little to do with my own interpretation and everything to do with the way in which the court ruling has chosen to address this case. if the issue of p2p filesharing were as 'abjectly simple' as you make out admin jafo then the practice would now be illegal. but it is not. rather, as has already been stated, the court's ruling addresses the finer nuances of the case - emphasising proof of the promotion of illegal file sharing over the technology that enables that file sharing.
but we have already been here. the fact that you require an instruction course in grasping these finer nuances that needs to be repeated either bespeaks your own intellectual obtuseness or the onset of senility. it's difficult to tell.
Reply #176 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:52 AM
Reply #177 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:52 AM
Reply #178 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 2:02 AM
Yes, it's clearly senility which prevents me from seeing your slant on things...but then I cannot fathom the machinations of a slug, either...
Come on...we're all dying to hear just 'what' you think, rather than simple contradiction of others'.
"This isn't an argument...it's a contradiction" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" ....
Reply #179 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 2:10 AM
| vasgo kindly read #169, thanks |
| then perhaps you might wish to clarify the details of my 'nick' with those that admin jafo felt he had the right to disclose kona0197. if my partner had wished to share his actual name then that is his choice. he also has a right to privacy. it was not admin jafo's right to disclose that information since it was not his 'right to share' no matter how insignificant that information turned out to be. does this sound like a familiar argument? |
which part of post #172. don't you understand admin jafo? and is it a case of ignorance or is it a case of denial?
Reply #180 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 3:33 AM
All of it, because in the face of #169 it's irrelevance, neither ignorance nor denial.
I think this is more an ego exposition rather than a debate/discussion....and a failed one at that.
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 9 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #161 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:56 PM