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 1 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Monday, June 27, 2005 10:19 PM
| Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly. |
The building/property Industry is rife with new-comers who made their nest-egg via drug trafficking and subsequently moved on to Property Development as a 'legitimate' [but less lucrative] business....
I know, because I have some as clients....
Reply #3 Monday, June 27, 2005 10:49 PM
It's a shame you couldn't just report the news. There is enough spin, we don't need it here too.
Reply #4 Monday, June 27, 2005 11:26 PM
| It's a shame you couldn't just report the news. There is enough spin, we don't need it here too. |
Wincustomize.com is a Skinning site...aka 'Graphic Art' Site. Its members/contributors own 'Intellectual Property' here and therefore logically also 'value' it.
Thus, the comment is not 'spin', it is simply recognition of audience...
Reply #5 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:20 AM
This is a completly idiotic ruling. How far is it going to go? Sue the car companies for liable because their products allow consumers to drive faster than the posted speed limit?
It won't end until all of the justices are dead. Because they obviously won't resign. If the technology were available, they would probably opt to keep their heads alive so that they could remain on the court and make more personal policy rulings for another 50 years. Term limits would be nice. It would also be nice if younger generations could actually get some representation on the court, people that actually know what the internet is.
/endrant
Reply #6 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:11 AM
| "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.
Reply #7 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:39 AM
You know, when you're in your twenties (or younger) it's amazing how stupid those who are much older than you can be, but by the time you hit your thirties it's amazing how much those same people have learnt in the intervening years...
Reply #8 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:27 AM
A police officer made comment about some copied CD's in my possession and the ripped content in my media player, telling me that I had broken copyright laws and could be charged. I pointed out that all the originals were also in my possession, that i had only backed them up for personal use and, why would I let my teenage step-daughter borrow my originals when she doesn't cherish the collection as much as I. After making relevant inquiries, the officer in question conceded that I had not infringed copyright as such....suggesting that law enforcement does not understand the laws properly and could result in unnecessary complications for innocent people. Hence, the wording of any P2P legislation needs to be very clear (so any copper can understand), and to be completely distiguishable from the reproduction of purchased materials for personal use, which at this time is stll permissible and should remain so. Touching this would result in millions clogging up the world's courts so real criminals remain bailed in the system for indefinite periods....not good.
Personally wouldn't have P2P on my system anyhow....don't approve and it can access personal information, as 4 I know sadly discovered only too late
Reply #9 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:43 AM
Reply #10 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:38 AM
starkers .... in Oz you actually ARE breaching copyright. The difference here is that it's not actively pursued.
In the US you would not be breaching copyright....which likewise becomes the case in Oz when the US Trade agreement is in place...the one Little Johnnie brokered that'll likely kill our Primary produce and Film Industries...
Reply #11 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:04 AM
| #5 by Citizen assassino4 This ruling is complete idiocy. What's next? How about Nero with their DVD burning software? After all, under the latest Supreme court train of thought, since you're using the company's software to illegally copy movies, surely the company will be held liable. This is a completly idiotic ruling. How far is it going to go? Sue the car companies for liable because their products allow consumers to drive faster than the posted speed limit? It won't end until all of the justices are dead. Because they obviously won't resign. If the technology were available, they would probably opt to keep their heads alive so that they could remain on the court and make more personal policy rulings for another 50 years. Term limits would be nice. It would also be nice if younger generations could actually get some representation on the court, people that actually know what the internet is. /endrant |
Completely agree.
Reply #12 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:39 AM
What is to now stop the RIAA, MPAA, and other rabid dogs from suing the creators of your webserver software which can OBVIOUSLY be used to host illegal files? What's to stop them from suing the company that made the OS your server runs on because it can OBVIOUSLY be used to copy data that is copyrighted? What's to stop them from suing the company that makes your server hardware for making something that can OBVIOUSLY be used to copy copyrighted data?
P2P technoloy is simply that, technology. There are SEVERAL legitimate uses for it, including, but not limited to, allowing access to game demos, skins, freeware and shareware applications, patches, sample music tracks and movie trailers and anything else you may want to share with people legally but may not have the bandwidth to do so.
Do you really expect companies to be able to filter their networks? What if they start filtering all file names like "The_Matrix.avi"? Then the users will simply use "Teh_Matr1x.avi" or maybe "That_Cool_Movie.was_an_avi"? How do you filter that and make sure you aren't filtering legitimate files?
The answer: you CAN'T.
That's what these judges don't understand. They want to punish innovators simply because some smacktard decides to use it illegally.
Technically, I can use your site to post copyrighted material if I like. I'm sure I can disguise it well enough so that the site admins would probably not catch it. Would you want to be sued simply because I CAN do that? (Not even if I actually did or not, just because I CAN)
Would be nice to see you thinking about the repurcussions before you post your spin on things.
I am all for protecting intellectual property because I make my living that way. But what you and the judges don't seem to realise, is that you go after the person that committed the crime, not the person that made the tools. Do you start suing crowbar manufacturers because their product was used in cat burglary?
Reply #13 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:52 AM
| Technically, I can use your site to post copyrighted material if I like. I'm sure I can disguise it well enough so that the site admins would probably not catch it. Would you want to be sued simply because I CAN do that? (Not even if I actually did or not, just because I CAN) |
You can 'try'....and equally you can be prosecuted for 'trying'.
Technically you cannot 'use our site'. In actuality we can allow you to use it. The difference here is that access can be revoked....without the ministrations of a Supreme Court to determine ones fate....
Let's not get all hysterical about the declaration that something used to aid and abet a crime is something deemed culpable....and that follows on to...
Gee...I stole some bread....and ran off....escaped on foot...ergo my shoes are guilty.
There's significant differences to distinguish the usage and abuse of P2P vs your Operating System....
Reply #14 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:54 AM
| Do you start suing crowbar manufacturers because their product was used in cat burglary? |
You would...if the advertising associated with crowbar sales stated..."Ideal for house-breaking...doubles as a cosh"...
Reply #15 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:49 AM
These companies exist primarily to enable people to steal from other people. That was their "business model". Shame on them and shame on anyone who thinks that's okay.
Reply #16 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:53 AM
| Do you really expect companies to be able to filter their networks? What if they start filtering all file names like "The_Matrix.avi"? Then the users will simply use "Teh_Matr1x.avi" or maybe "That_Cool_Movie.was_an_avi"? How do you filter that and make sure you aren't filtering legitimate files? The answer: you CAN'T. That's what these judges don't understand. They want to punish innovators simply because some smacktard decides to use it illegally. |
No, what you don't seem to understand is the difference between something that is designed primarily for illegal use and something that can potentially be used for illegal use.
An FTP site, for instance, could be used for illegal purposes. But things like Kazaa are primarily used for illegal activity and that the businesses know this.
The analogy I heard today was gun manufacturers and Kazaa. It's a ridiculous comparison. Millions of guns are sold each year, but only a tiny tiny percentage are used for illegal purposes. By contrast, the evidence in the case is that the vast majority of users of the program in question were using it for illegal activities.
A site like WinCustomize.com could end up with something illegal on it. But that doesn't make it a warez site. There is a huge gulf between a legitimate download site (like Download.com) and a warez site for instance. This ruling puts companies on notice that they can no longer make their business model predicated on illegal activity. Kazaa and its ilk became popular because it made it easy for people to pirate software.
Reply #17 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:11 AM
| Completely agree. |
Many might agree as well but the entire statement is absurd and totally irrelevant to the legit issue.
All of these 'inventions' were created for a positive use but it is up to every person to take responsibilities and make proper use of them.
I’m sure Nero didn’t develop the DVD burning software to have people rent, copy and sell/distribute movies. The software was design to give people ways to back up their legitimate work or material rightfully owned. The same way the video recorder was not made to go into a movie theater and video tape a movie to later copy and sell/distribute.
I own a car that clocks 180 mph but I run it up to 65 mph because it is my responsibility to my community to obey the laws, of course if I’m ever on the autobahn I will surely hit the 180 mph.
Every one that hails to the might of these gadgets, programs and software might one day find themselves victims of their own use, and they'll be singing a different tune then.
Reply #18 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:20 AM
| I’m ever on the autobahn I will surely hit the 180 mph. |
Look into Montana and Wyoming - can't remember which (or if they changed their laws/rules yet) - used to be basically a $10-20 'wasting fuel' fine. I think the thought behind it was something about if you want to go that fast that's up to you. Just remember, if you crash it may be a long while before someone cruises by so you could be there a while.
zoom-zoom
Reply #19 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:31 AM
I gots no problem with it (yet). It's still gonna boil down to purpose of design/intent of application/knowledge of use. If I build the world largest steamrollers and someone buys/steals/borrows one, and later uses it to flatten a traffic jam or an enemies house - not my fault. If I build them for the purpose of squishing people you don't like - that's another matter.
Reply #20 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:01 PM
| If I build the world largest steamrollers and someone buys/steals/borrows one, and later uses it to flatten a traffic jam or an enemies house - not my fault. If I build them for the purpose of squishing people you don't like - that's another matter. |
There is where the rub will come. Intent. You can be sure the next step for P2P software developers will be to plaster disclaimers all over their software: "Not to be used for swapping illegal files" or something to that effect.
Then it becomes a tangled knot for the courts to decide if that is sufficient to show intent, or lack of, or if merely having a large enough percentage of users of your software committing illegal acts will overide any 'intent' you had, regardless of how loud you proclaim otherwise.
General concensus seems to be that if you make a piece of software that ends up being used by a large percentage of law-breakers, you intended for that to be the sole use.
A similar situation occurred here in Texas many years ago when drug paraphernalia was made illegal. For many years, if you used a pipe to smoke tobacco, you were out of luck since they pretty much disappeared from stores that sold tobacco and tobacco products. The retailers didn't want to take a chance on selling a product that 'might' be illegal.
The assumption being that they were used mostly by pot smokers.
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 1 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, June 27, 2005 9:09 PM