Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case 285
CrystalFalcon writes "Wired News reports that a federal appeals court is poised to hear arguments in a landmark case involving Grokster and Morpheus that could decide the future of peer-to-peer services, and may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior." The appeal against last April's Grokster/Morpheus court win will take a while to shake out, though: "At Tuesday's hearing, each side will have 30 minutes to present its arguments and answer questions from the three judges. The judges will likely take several months to issue an opinion on the matter."
May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, where are the software companies in all this? Shouldn't groups like Real, Apple, and even ATI (all of who make technologies that could concievable fall under the headder of 'being used for copyright infringement') be worried too. I don't think these companies are gonna get sued (they can claim plenty of ligit uses) but they might seem some rather unpleasant regulation come out of this.
Re:Don't laugh (Score:2)
What about authors of, and collaborators on, other open source software? This is not a rhetorical question, as with the PATRIOT act and other actions going on with the current US Administration, such ridiculous leaps are suddenly and frighteningly possible.
The GIMP is a tool to draw diagrams of nuclear payloads, the various checkbook ledger programs are a way to handle laundered funds
I have a better idea... (Score:2)
Every time you download a song from a legit source, tell two friends, and tell them to tell two more. Get information out using p2p about how to use this to get legal, free music. And if you like what you've found, buy CD's. Pay money to the artists di
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2)
Guns are for killing. Maybe killing people, maybe killing animals. Killing anyway.
Those guns which aren't used for killing are used for such pleasures as holding up 7-11 stores, holding the upper hand in a fight, stealing, etc.
Have a look at the US - the most 'relaxed' gun laws around, and the highest incidence of violent crime around.
Remember: guns don't kill; people kill; people with GUNS.
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns are for killing. Maybe killing people, maybe killing animals. Killing anyway.
Those guns which aren't used for killing are used for such pleasures as holding up 7-11 stores, holding the upper hand in a fight, stealing, etc.
Have a look at the US - the most 'relaxed' gun laws around, and the highest incidence of violent crime around.
Remember: guns don't kill; people kill; people with GUNS.
Ok trollboy, I'll feed you...
Personally I like to use my guns for target practice, i.e. making holes in paper targets and then letting my friends (who are REALLY good) humiliate me because they shot a better score than I did. No killing involved, unless you're going to get pedantic and count the trees that were killed to make the paper for the target.
Believe it or not, the majority of gun owners are not raving psychos and criminals as you imply.
Mechanik
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2)
Stopping others from killing me first?
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2)
hmmm... that was supposed to be a Simpson's reference (Homer: seatbelts kill...), but actually it's true.
so...
um.
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Self defense.
Entertaining sport.
Armed populace.
There are three. Now, if you are like most anti-gun folks you will say that the first to are not necessary as we haqve police to protected us. Unforetunately that is not true. The third is probably going to get me called some sort of pickup driving backwater hick. The fourth will probably conjure up some tinfoil head ornaments.
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2)
It's like no one has ever heard of the Second Amendment. The only reason it was second instead of first is that they (the authors) wanted us to talk first, shoot second.
I laugh when people talk about weapons like 'fully automatic weapons' not being protected by the second amendment, that instead it meant 'hunting rifles'.
At the time, no one would even have thought it necessary to protect a 'hunting rifle'. The second amendment exists for one reason and one reason only - to guarantee that the
Re:May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:2)
Self defense: How is that different than threat deterrent? Oh, you said "there are three", maybe you realized.
Entertaining sport: While I won't deny that there is some entertainment to be had, if that was the sole reason for guns I'm pretty sure you could do just as well with non-lethal devices, except of course for the "fun" of using something that's actually capable of killi
Self defense killing only occasional side-effect. (Score:2)
Ok this one could involve killing, but only in retaliation.
If it involves killing in retaliation, you're doing it wrong. Self-defense involves attempting to stop an attack. If you then hold the perpetrator you've crossed the line into citizen's arrest - part of law enforcement. If you hunt him down and shoot him after he runs, or shoot him once he's stopped attacking and threatening, you've crossed another line into vigilantism.
Usually you can stop an attack by drawing and aiming the g
The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:3, Funny)
Damn....I'm surprised so many people saw that....as soon as I heard the 'talent' that was on the halftime show...I tuned out. I did see a little at the begining with JJ...but, when I heard the names justin timberlake and p-diddy-puffy..or whatever...I left the room.
Thank goodness for replays on Tivo....
Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:3)
I asked for the replay on the TiVo (I headed to the kitchen as soon as Timberlake popped up). We were watching a HD broadcast, though, so the TiVo wasn't running.
(On the way home, though, I heard that Drudge [drudgereport.com] had a closeup...that's probably why his site isn't loading now.)
What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that WORSE than a breast?
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, parents can make sure that their kids will not be allowed to watch whatever violent show you're reffering to.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a breast, dude. A breast. Every woman has one. Or two. Maybe not Betty Ford, but whatever. There is nothing crass or crude about a breast, it's freakin' nature, for crying out loud. Some people are just too damned uptight. What exactly do you think you are "protecting" your children from, anyway?
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
In most cases, premarital sex is far more likely than cold blooded murder.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
*sigh* I hate when people turn off their brain for the sake of arguing.
Fine, I'll explain it to you:
Despite all the television depicted murders out there, kids/teens aren't likely to go out and shoot anybody in the head and kill them. However, some people have correlated the increase with sexually explicit images on TV with an increase in sex amongst teenagers. Now whether that is true or not is irrelevant, it's simply a matter of percpetion. Most people would
Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:5, Interesting)
What they heck did this organization do before Napster? Surely they had some other business function. It seems like they've completely morphed into judge, jury, and executioner within 4 years.
Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:2)
They handed out gold records, and such.
I'm not making this up. That's what they did.
Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:2)
Remember in the late 90's when there were numerous individuals running their own Internet radio stations? And then some pissant organization representing the record companies shut them down? That's when the RIAA first appeared on my radar.
So far it's been Webcasting>Napster>Kazaa>?? All they're doing is moving the cheese further and further out of *their own* reach.
Why not... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean after all look at the tabacco companies... they did not force people to smoke yet they are held responsible for the people that smoke.
Re:Why not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you count porn.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not... (Score:2)
Betcha can't go a month without cola and coffee.
OT: Why so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the judges take 60 minutes to hear arguments from plaintiff and defendant, why do they take months to render a verdict?
Is this the only case the judges are considering, or do they have a bunch of different cases ongoing at the same time.
If only one, they must be doing a lot of research in the interim.
Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:3, Informative)
Just my two bits
I imagine both sides are submitting piles of documents to go along with their cases, heavily footnoted. Add in similar documentation by people filing supplemental "friends of the court" briefs. Plus all of the case law and court decisions that are referenced. Stir well. Repeat for all of the other cases on their schedule.
IANAL, etc.
Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:3, Funny)
-
I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
When you look at the telco, internet, and mail, they are all a broad distribution medium obviously designed to transfer things from one point to the next with complete disregard to what they carry. The IP Holde
hopefully a fruitless attempt by the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the 9th Circuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the 9th Circuit (Score:2)
So we should start downloading all the mp3 and pr0n our harddrive can hold?
How is that figured? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 9th circuit has one of the highest, if not the highest, case loads of any court in the country.
Re:How is that figured? (Score:5, Informative)
You can take an odd sample, i.e. for the three weeks in early april 2001, and the 9th may be in first place for that time. That's where this claim started, when some conservative talk-radio hosts mentioned that for the last few weeks, the 9th was being overturned a lot, and it's become exaggerated repeatedly since then, chiefly by other conservatives. It's not even clear that the original claim was either right or researched at all.
Re:It's the 9th Circuit (Score:2, Insightful)
Winning the war but losing the battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology stays a step ahead of the music industries ability to track down people who are downloading and/or distributing copyrighted content throughout the Internet. So, either find a way to communicate, more effectively, that people who make music have to get paid, or, price the products so that it is just not worth it to download what is quite often not-so-great recordings. Have there been experiments to see if you can sell enough CD's at, say, $10 instead of $18 to make up for the price drop?
Happy Trails,
Erick
Re:Winning the war but losing the battle (Score:2)
Though with itunes I have to convert the aac's to mp3, so it is playable in my mp3 player, which is a pain in the ass.
The other day I was going to buy a best of Billie Holliday CD set, and noticed that the price was in the $30 range. I laughed my ass off, w
Betamax (Score:5, Informative)
What was presented that makes this case different? Just because its on the internet? There seems to be this overwheleming need to make laws to cover things that already exisit just because it is now online. We have too many laws at it is.
-M
Re:Betamax (Score:2, Informative)
Everything about it is different. The argument you are referring to was effectively used in defense of Sharman Networks (the creators of Kazaa). It related to the creation of p2p networks (gnutella, freenet, etc.), NOT the question at hand: the subpoena power of the RIAA
Re:Betamax (Score:2)
Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the Verizon case? Neither this article nor the previous article about this case mentions the DMCA subpoena powers. Furthermore, I don't see what information the RIAA would want to subpoena the P2P network itself for. Most of the good stuff (from a lawsuit perspective) is buried in the
Re:Betamax (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the main difference is that the people running the P2P networks still have on-going contact with the activity on that network. If I buy a VCR from Sony, they have no idea what I'm doing with it. If I hop on a network run by Morpheus, they still have some theoretical involvement with what's going on.
I'm honestly not decided on this issue (since I'm pro-copyright but I dislike the thought on having all online speech regulated), but I do think
Bad Statement (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, people who did nothing and make money off of recording artists is the entire foundation of the RIAA... lets face it. Second of all, don't these people understand a few key things. 1) There are things besides music being traded on these networks 2) Even if people are making money off of it, that has nothing to do with the law. The fact of the matter is that if a copyrighted song is illegally sent over a P2P network, the network has no control over it. It's the user who's breaking the law. Lets face it, the major P2P networks don't advocate breaking the law. They provide a simple medium for trading files over the internet, which is a great thing for young song writers looking to put their name out there, the trading of software that's legal, free, shareware, open, etc... The porn industry has figured out that you can even combat the P2P networks in a positive way. They fill up P2P networks with movie clips and pictures with URLs all over them, so you can say, "Hey! That's some good pr0n! I'm going to that site!" (or so I hear). There are so many wonderful uses for this medium. Why can't these people realize that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bad Statement (Score:5, Interesting)
They provide:
Recording studios and equipment
Initial cash for distribution
Advertising
Manufacturing
Actually, the ARTIST pays for almost all of that. All the Record companies actually do is provide a loan to the artist so that they can accomplish all of them above--and to top it all off, the record company ends up owning the end product.
It's like buying a house, paying the bank for 30 years, and at the end instead of giving you clear title, the bank says "Thanks for the house."
Re:Bad Statement (Score:4, Insightful)
They do what they do because that is what they have done... i.e. much of what they do, they do for historic reasons, rather than because they are the best/most efficient providers of this service to the music consumer today. It is arguable how necessary some of these legacy functions remain in a networked world, especially with respect to marketing and distribution, and to a lesser extent recording studios. The RIAA has been fighting to maintain a broken business model that is dis-intermediating them. They need to find a way to become relevant again i.e. add real value to the music consumer, or face growing obsolescence.
Re:Bad Statement (Score:2)
Not according to riaa.org... (Score:2)
They provide:
Recording studios and equipment
Initial cash for distribution
Advertising
Manufacturing
etc. etc.
Now, I'm not saying that they aren't a bunch of bastards who rip off artists and try and restrict technology, but they DO do a lot.
Nope, read it closely, directly from RIAA.org...
Re:Bad Statement (Score:2)
Through all of this, the RIAA does nothing f
The possible outcomes of this decision: (Score:5, Interesting)
2.) The previous ruling will be upheld and future P2P Technology will focus anonymity which results in more innovation in the technological field.
While there are other details that will be decided, the overall fate of P2P will not be sealed by either ruling made by this court. P2P itself is here to stay, simply because it is so vast and uncontrollable.
Jamon
the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
it's possible to distribute copyrighted material using a VCR. it's also possible to do this with blank cds. but with p2p programs, the problem is that the vast majority of users use it for illegal reasons.
Re:the difference? (Score:2)
I don't get this argument.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see the difference at all. VCRs are products that allow you both legally and illegally distribute and copy copyrighted information. Ditto for these P2P networks. VCRs are legal. P2P networks are _____? Doesn't seem to hard to me.
Re:I don't get this argument.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue they are trying to raise is based around the distribution part. If you have a tape in a VCR, that tape isn't shared with other VCRs, but if you have an MP3 shared on a P2P client, it is shared with other clients. I feel it's a pretty weak argumen
P2P for Artists. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am writing this as a proposal for the geeks on this board who would like to take action against the **AA's of the world, yet don't want to be just another martyr. [slashdot.org] What I propose is a new kind of file sharing system that removes the need for the **AA's altogether. Although the system I envision will work nicely with music, it should translate fairly readily with books, movies, and other creative content as well. Done properly, it could be the 'killer app' Napster aspired to be and stand as incontrovertible proof that F/OSS systems pay off in ways other systems cannot. Please bear with me, because this will not be trite post.
1. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
We tried to be nice about it. We really did. We downloaded songs, books, and movies with a 'try before you buy' attitude. Buying what we liked, and declining what we didn't. But they didn't like that idea. Nooooo. God forbid we make an informed purchasing decision. They called us thieves, destroyed our centralized system, fought to strip us of our rights, crap flooded our networks, and took us to court. Well in the words of Bugs Bunny, 'Of course you realize this means war." So we've taken up the fight with new distributed systems, encryption, and plausible deniability. However, in our grand fight of "Us vs. Them" we've casually forgotten one of the 'Us'es. The artists, the creators, the people who produce what we download in the first place. Each and every one of our new distributed systems is just a more elaborate version of the one that came before. What we need is a system that gives the creators an incentive to share their works. We can continue to build better mice while they build better mousetraps, or we can start thinking of a ways to include the artists in our game plan. Kazaa, in a quest for legitimacy, is trying to do this. They are retrofitting a system onto a network that was designed with a single minded devotion to withstanding legal attacks. It wasn't meant to be what they want it to be and, as such, it is failing. As long as we exclude artists, they will continue to view us as the enemy. The entertainment industry is trying to pervert copyright through force of software, rather than law now. With DRM, the tables are turned. They're building mice and we're building mousetraps. Instead of focusing our efforts on breaking those systems, we should instead rectify those perversions by creating a system in the original spirit of copyright. Create a system that provides incentive to artists without stepping on the rights of the public. In doing so, we can create an open system in which the 'Them's can't compete, because the 'Them's aren't competitive anymore. We need the artists. What we don't need is the middleman.
2. Foundation for a new system.
Our new system has to perform three essential functions to supplant our much hated middlemen. Distribution, Marketing, Profit! By replacing the middleman's functionality, we can remove him from the process entirely. We are one third of the way there already. It's pretty obvious that we have distribution down to a science. Step two and three need more work.
3. Marketing
We need a way to 'spread the word' about content creators. I am convinced, as are a handful of others, that collaborative filtering is the way to go. A couple of notable mentions are iRate [sourceforge.net] and AudioScrobbler. [audioscrobbler.com] If you haven't used one of these systems, allow me to briefly describe iRate. When you launch the program, it downloads 20 'seed' songs. Songs that are popular across various groups of users. You rate these songs on a scale of 1 to 10 and it then tries to guess what songs you are likely to enjoy by comparing your ratings to the ratings of other users. It then sends you a few more songs, rinse, repeat. The longer you use it, the more accurate its guessing becomes. This is far superior
Re:P2P for Artists. (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the "industry" does provide ONE service that isn't taken into account here... Recording studios. The artists still need a way to make a clean, professional recording of their music, and I'm sure the "industry" will find some way to forcibly bundle the rest of their "services" with that.
Re:P2P for Artists. (Score:2, Interesting)
See: Peter Gabriel and Brian Enu launch MUDDA [billboard.com]
Setting a judicial precedent... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Setting a judicial precedent... (Score:2)
More of the double standard... (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the consensus here is that software companies should not be held responsible for the illegal use of their software, yet apparently, the same is not true of hardware manufacturers. For example gun makers...
Re:More of the double standard...sue Dell (Score:2)
So should the **AA be suing Dell?
Guns don't kill people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So last time people -- you can't fault the tool and probably not even the toolmaker because, in essence, the tool is always innocent. If the user of the tool uses it in a way to unlawfully gain from others or to cause damage to others, then there's a user problem that needs correcting.
If the **IA is allowed to get away with this, then you must logically ban every other product on the planet that could possibly be misused, such as cars, guns, steak knives, VCR's, etc, etc, etc.
Nothing to see here people, move along....
Sure. You get all your Linux updates by p2p, sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this weak argument is that screwdrivers and VCRs are not specifically used for doing illegal things 95% of the time. Please save your breath about how you use P2P do download legitimate software and blaw, blaw, blaw. You know that's a load of shit. P2P is used to download copyrighted music and othe
Re:Sure. You get all your Linux updates by p2p, su (Score:2)
Re:Sure. You get all your Linux updates by p2p, su (Score:2)
Yes, p2p gives people a choice, beyond the "free or paid" one
Re:Guns don't kill people.... (Score:2, Insightful)
We have assault rifles and hunting rifles. One of them is designed expressly for killing people.
Of course, as another poster pointed out, the consequences are a bit different in this case...
Re:Guns don't kill people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guns don't kill people.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Accuracy matters in most shooting games.
Shoot cows? farmers have a limited need for extremely simple single shot rifles (no magazines, break-reload)
Hand gun is easier to wield. (Granted I don't know what they usually use.)
Self-Defense? once we get rid of the guns some mace and a bat will be fine
God made man. Colt made them equal. Do you really expect your mom to overpower a couple teens with a bat? Your mom must be quite the brute, too bad my mom isn't
what if p2p became illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what if p2p became illegal? (Score:2)
All it would mean is that all p2p companies would be working out of countries other than the USA. The only recourse then available to the people that would want to shut these p2p networks down would be to filter the packets coming into the US, which would never ever ever happen, given that there is a well-armed nerd populace keeping freedom alive down there.
Meaningful? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think "meaningful" is what they're after. How about "totalitarian" or "draconian" for adjectives, guys? You've far exceeded the realm of just "meaningful." I don't think suing 12-year-olds and senior citizens has a whole lot to do with meaning.
The future of P2P? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it became outright illegal to do anything with P2P in the US, it wouldn't mean the end of P2P networks.
What about power companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, why not make the power companies responsible for their customers' behavior, too? (I guess there could be an exemption in cases where the power was used to charge a battery that was later used for bad behavior.) What about when people conspire to commit a crime while talking over the phone? Is the phone co. supposed to listen in and report everybody? Or is it just another utility?
could decide the future of p2p services? (Score:3, Insightful)
Appeals Court (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, they make a judgement if any of our rights under the constitution have been infringed upon.
Only in extrodrionary circumstances will the court look at evidence and make warrented assertions on it. I am by no means a legal scholar, so someone please correct me, but I do not remember this happening in any largely publisized case recently.
What will go down is something along the lines of the RIAA (or what ever legal firm is handling it) saying " violates the artist fundemental right to the pursuit of happiness. This is demonstrated in our orignal evidence we provided in x, y, z exhibits." Right of happiness a fundemental right normally associated with making money; which is also where "copy right" rights are derrived from.
The p2p people will come back and say "Actually, the artists right to pursuit of happiness is not infringed, as they are already making exhoberant amount of money, and p2p doesn't impact this at all, as is demonstrated in evidence a, b, c." The p2p people will probably also try, ablit unsuccessfully, to throw in there that the RIAA and their cronies are using unconstitutional scare tatics, but that won't be listened to and will eventualy result in one of the largest cases of violation of rights ever seen in resent times (I'm talking about the RIAA police).
Somone with more knowledge on the subject please feel free to correct me, I only have several years of debate team expierence and a few law classes, not too much, but enough to give my 2 cents.
- Simrook
All P2P "services" or just P2P mp3/pr0n/warez ? (Score:3, Interesting)
*free as in Beer
What it basicly boils down to... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I really don't see what the alternative is. You let all information pass, then deal with the violations. Or do I have to verify with the master database that my digicam picture isn't the copyrighted work of someone else, including bit changed to fool an MD5 sum, or a resampled image to fool fuzzy logic, before I can send it to a friend? That kind of system can never work. Ever.
Kjella
hypocritical at best (Score:3, Insightful)
This upsets me every time I think about it! Here are some parallels we're not likely to hear about:
Comparing copyright violation to gun problems and other violent crime, American education problems, economic problems, and environmental problems is like comparing a noisy neighbor to a breaking-and-entering. It's pointless to start at the bottom level of importance, because that would assume that more important circumstances would be treated either the same or even harsher.
You can shoot somebody for breaking and entering if you are protecting yourself or your family from bodily harm. But you can't shoot a kid for rolling your house. Saying that tech companies can be held responsible for the copyright violation of their customers, but can't hold a gun company responsible for a 6 six year old shooting another 6 year old with their product.... Well, that's like saying you can shoot a kid rolling your house, but not somebody that broke in and is raping your wife.
Stop calling them "their customers". (Score:2)
If you'd said "gun companies held responsible for crimes committed using their products" you'd have been dead on.
But PLEASE let's not talk about "their customers" in this context.
- MOST of the guns legally obtained from gun companies and the legal distribution network are NEVER used for crime.
- MOST of the guns used in crime have been transferred at least once through an illegal channel (typically stolen and/or bought on the blac
How about MS? (Score:2)
Can't compare to Betamax? Oh really... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ramos said the two cases can't be compared.
Of course not. He'd lose!
"The Betamax was a product that allowed consumers to make copies," he said. "The defendants operate services which facilitate both unauthorized distribution as well as copying, and that continuing network is fundamentally different from the sale of a consumer electronics product, which was the subject of the Betamax case."
Seems to me that:
1: Sony directly made money selling Betamax units at (initially) $1300USD. P2P is available for the cost of a free download. Who is directly making money?
2: Sony continued to make money selling blank Betamax tapes. In fact, the more you used your Betamax, the more tapes Sony sold.
IANAL, however, all things considered, I would think Sony's case was far weaker than this one -- and they won. Of course, considering the overall (truly rotten) record of the 9th Circuit Court, their decision will probably have to be reversed by SCOTUS.
Has no-one considered ... (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
So why should P2P companies be liable for the actions of every single one of their users on their networks?
Tech company liable? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I think this is totally the wrong kind of thinking. I sell you a product, and now I'm liable for what you do with it?
What ever happened to having to deal with the consequences of the choices you make? The whole thing makes me sick!
That being said however, if the court does settle in this direction, I wonder if this applies in all cases or just P2P. (If in all cases, how many of us will you find in the line to sue good ol' MicroSoft for all the virus infested email their customers
Re:9th Circuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:9th Circuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:9th Circuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:9th Circuit (Score:2)
With appologies to the Zucker brothers...
Re:9th Circuit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:9th Circuit (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9th's rulings stand up much better than average. They are in about 3rd place, possibly 4th, out of all the circuit courts. Considering that an exceptional amount of the 9th's rulings are in new areas, particularly technology, having the supremes agree 75 to 80% of the time for the last 10 years is a very good record.
The district court that covers Arkansas and some nearby states, on the other hand, has been overturned more than half the time, and on rulings that are in obvious disagreement with old, well established law. Given this contrast, I think I'll claim that Rush Limbaugh is a better pro soccer player than Pele, and see if I get modded +17.
Re:9th Circuit -- BS!! (Score:2)
The 9th's rulings stand up much better than average.
What utter and absolute BS!
The 9th is by far the most reversed court in the country, with more than 85% of their reviewed decisions overturned by SCOTUS.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If companies are responsible for their customer (Score:2)
Since most guns are NOT used in crime, and most of the guns that ARE used in crime are NOT purchased by the crook from gun companies or through normal and legal distribution channels, your statement is incorrect.
B-)
Works both ways. (Score:2)
That works both ways:
"If the court holds gun manufacturers liable for how their customers use the tech companies' products, then couldn't the same liability apply to tech companies?"
Yep.
Think about than the next time you're considering suporting an organization that supports such litigation.
Re:Guns vs. P2P (Score:2)
Nope.
Crimes committed using automatic weapons differ greatly from pirated movies/music being transferred via P2P. Stop using that comparison.
Since the issue is whether the maker of a product or service that is misused by a lawbreaker is legally liable for the damage caused by the lawbreaker's misuse, the cases are exactly equivalent.
The nature of the damages doesn't alter the nature of the issue. It only changes the amount and type of liability that is assigned to t