MGM v. Grokster: Here's Why P2P is Valuable 732
Briefs defending Grokster's right to exist were filed yesterday in MGM v. Grokster, from Intel, Creative Commons [PDF], and many others. Among them, 17 computer science professors laid out the case for P2P, beginning with principles: "First, the United States' description of the Internet's design is wrong. P2P networks are not new developments in network design, but rather the design on which the Internet itself is based." Pointedly, the EFF compares this case's arguments to those made over 20 years ago in the Betamax case, which established the public's right to use video-copying technology, because of its "substantial non-infringing uses," even though many used videotape to infringe copyright. We'll soon see whether that right will extend to peer-to-peer software: the Supreme Court takes this up on March 29th.
Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I bang my head on the wall so much when I hear people get completely wrong simple things which really aren't technical, yet appear to excuse their manglings as acceptable because only wizards with great intellects can fathom it. Probably has a lot to do with the same mentality which says, "it's ok to give up some of my rights in these trying times, it's for the good of the country."
Re:I'm not confident (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Corporate lobbyists are always in the Supreme Court telling the justices how to rule, and the justices rule as the lobbyists tell them to.
3. The sky is green.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
It is okay for you to give up your rights.
It stops being okay when you try to give up MY rights.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, SCP, blah blah blah blah blah, can all be used to send files across the Internet to another party.
P2P has its legitimate uses as does any other object. P2P has its illegal uses as does any other tool. Obviously the lawyers would have a field day if P2P was banned...
P2P + BitTorrent (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:3, Insightful)
Grokster is an application of P2P technology that appears to exist to allow people to swap copyrighted files without permission.
They are not the same thing. MGM just wants Grokster and StreamCast banned. Not P2P itself!
Re:I'm not confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, dude... (Score:2, Insightful)
the first is a moral issue, which has little bering on corporate profits (except the sick little monkeys in the execute-minors-industry). This case has to do with fear. Fear of losing control of 'properties'* and fighting tooth and nail (and no small amount of kicking under the table) to strangle consumption of their goods. Get the crap out there in volumes and at fair prices and pirates will be a thing of the past. Withhold it and then even rip off consumers with alleged-Widescreen (cropped from pan-and-scan) and you get those around the cracks and seams who will provide for themselves.
*most of which should have fallen into the public domain, by now, including a well known mouse caricature.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:1, Insightful)
If P2P is so valuable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't disagree with their reasoning. I'd go a lot further. Certainly there are 15 year olds who are aware of the consequences of their actions, and should be held accountable.
I have difficulty with the arbitrary age distinction for emancipation. A teenager with a very sheltered life actually has certain disadvantages versus one who grows up streetwise, for instance. There are adult 12 year olds, and there are 20 year olds who are still children.
People under 18 should have some means to emancipate themselves, gain the right to vote, run for office, manage their own finances, own real property, etc. Not all are capable of succeeding, but there should be a process where they are given the opportunity.
No, No, No (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're either extremely naive, or you work for one of the **AA's.
EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate professors (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that P2P is an important network standard and therefore grokster cannot be held liable for what it enables with its software is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
There is a difference between eliminating a transmission method and policing the items that are actually purveyed. For example, everyone lives in a house. But that doesn't mean that we can't be against crackhouses, or that we can't demand that landlords take precautions to safeguard against their property being used as crackhouses.
If you are against copyright infringement, fine. If you don't think that the safeguards being proposed against copyright infringement over P2P networks are reasonable, fine. But don't pretend that this is an attack on P2P itself. The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement. The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held, and to claim that the very Internet is under attack is a red herring.
Sigh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
For instance, the Internet was designed with redundancy in mind, when where a dead end is put in place, data can find another route to it's destination. Then you have some idiotic politician out to try and score points saying he wants the censor the whole of the internet of porn, free speech etc "for the sake of the children" Please.
And then you have idiots in marketing who think that the Internet "Is a big untapped market" of people who are just itching to come to their dingy website spend billions.
Sigh...
Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong; I am highly critical of those who wrongly distribute copyrighted material, but Grokster (in and of itself) is not to blame for this.
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In order to win this (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.filerush.com
Or are we talking specifically clients like Morpheus , et al?
There are a LOT of conspiracy theory documents, etc on P2P networks (or there were last time I used one) that would certainly qualify as a free speech use.
There are also loads of personal photos that people apparently want to share with the world.
It's also a viable distribution method for independent artists.
The list goes on and on and on.
Re:I hate professors (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy inadvertently argues for the opposite of what you and MGM are proposing. Many of us still believe that people have the right to publish books without government censorship or interference.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that tells you something about him. It should have been a no-brainer: A flimsy piece of cloth is obviously not as important as our freedoms. If he had to struggle over that for more than 30 seconds, he's not fit for his position.
Re:P2P + BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
And while we're on the subject of anonymity, you might want to do the anonymity at layer2/3, instead of some lame-ass protocol that will be too limited 6 months after it gets big.
Re:I hate professors (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash for you. In the United States, the goverment CANNOT request that such a book be taken off library shelves. And that's a good thing.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement.
LOL. You know, the phone companies made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against criminals using their equipment and networks to plan nefarious deeds. The federal government made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against bank robbers using the highway system to get to the banks.
The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held
Aah, I see you are getting it
Re:I hate professors (Score:4, Insightful)
So creators of FTPd, HTTPd, SMTPd, NNTPd, etc should all have to write in "reasonable" safeguards to stop copyrighted material from passing over their software?
Honestly, that can't work, I am free to move my copyrighted software from machine to machine to machine via FTP, HTTP, etc. That would put an end to the usefulness of these programs.
BTW -- I have talked about "reasonable" before. What's reasonable [slashdot.org]? I suppose in this day and age being "reasonable" all depends on how much money was slipped into the pockets of our law makers.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
I've just been arguing this elsewhere. Claiming P2P networks should be banned because it's used to share copyrighted works is like claiming that HTTP should be banned because web pages are used to slander people, or that knives should be outlawed because knives are used for stabbings. And it doesn't end there, screwdrivers and pencils can be used for stabbings, hammers can be used for bashing people's heads in, and cars can be used for running people over.
However, the designs of all of these tools are morally/ethically/legally neutral, as is the case with tools in general. Moreover, the internet is inherently a P2P system. There really isn't an inherent difference between "client" and "server", nor should there be. Because of this, I'm not sure how lawmakers/judges intend to draw a conclusive line between P2P networks and other network traffic, effectively censoring one protocol without destroying the Internet in general.
Re:Is this MGM versus P2P or MGM vs Grokster? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given this state of affairs, a decision against Grokster ("a P2P client which is used to trade copyrighted works") could well set a precedent that is used to take down any P2P system (given they'll all be used to trade copyrighted works some some degree).
Additionally, the *AA has been pretty indiscriminate about attacking P2P wherever it arises - even BitTorrent is being attacked at its weakest link (the peer/file discovery process - Suprnova, Lokitorrent, etc). It seems pretty clear (to me, at least) that, given all P2P systems will invariably be used to share copyrighted works, the *AA are against P2P as a concept.
The essence of P2P is that users can share what they like, how they like. If the *AA are against this unfettered use of P2P, they are against P2P.
Re:Test (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't think destroying the internet as we know it is opposed to their desires. I suspect many executives in large media companies would be happy if setting up web/ftp servers required a license or wading through tons of red tape-- something expensive and difficult enough to the point of preventing individuals from posting anything, and eliminating the Internet as we know it today. What I'm saying is, they like the internet as a one-way broadcast, where they're still the source of the information and you're a passive recipient.
That's the way current radio/TV broadcasting and medium-based distribution works, and that's the model that keeps them in a semi-monopoly over the information and entertainment you have access to. If they can turn the Internet into this model, they will.
Re:If P2P is so valuable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another point is that people who otherwise could not get published by Sony and Viacom can now self publish. There are lots of sites with music and videos on the Internet other than those of the RIAA cartel. This is what they want to stop. If they can kill any distribution mechanism other than their own then they can stop progress. Ha!
Unfortunately, these music companies have largely outlived their usefulness to society. Within a few decades we'll be able to preview new music by search engines rather than visiting the record store.
The music industry is one generation behind the SW industry. I was diappointed to find I cannot write SW products for a living other than integration but do realize the over-supply of SW generally drives progress. Likewise, we'll see an over-supply of music. Related to this is the over-supply of food: if someone from the 1600's walked into a grocery store today they'd be flabergasted. That's how the music industry will look to us by the end of the century.
MPIAA/RIAA is still trying to force people to buy buggy whips.
not necessarily p2p (Score:5, Insightful)
Please click the link and look at the diagram. It's one of the single most important concepts vital to understanding the structure of the internet.
This is nothing new. The decentralized design was chosen to maximize the price to redundancy ratio. A distributed network is too prone to failure and was not feasable back in 1968 (and still isn't today because of the basic economic structure in America. The internet will remain decentralized as long as the telcos own the phone lines.)
Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really want gang-bangers to have guns, but I think that having a police officer with a gun is usually a good thing.
P2P should not be illegal, the act of piracy is already illegal. We do not need new laws, or even need the old laws "fleshed out" - they are perfectly adequate and can address the issue of piracy.
Re:I'm not confident -- Oh, The Children, sob... (Score:1, Insightful)
And 100% of them are definitely guilty. We know that how?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:4, Insightful)
What a provocative misstatement.
4 out of 9 justices believed that there was no distinction in the law as it's written between a person who committed a crime at the age of 18, and a person who committed a crime at the age of 17.
No one has suggested it's proper to strap an 8-year-old into an electric chair.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Your are not consistant. Its mans law they broke, and no man should have the right to take the life of another man for any reason. So are you pro-life, and thus apparently inconsistent because you are for the Iraq war, or pro-choice, and thus inconsistent because you are against killing anyone after they are born?
While many pro-lifers are for the Iraq war, the two issues have little in common. There are plenty who are against the Iraq war.
Even among those who are for the war, they are not in consistant. They make a distinction between taking an innocent life, taking the guilty, and accidental death. Since the unborn are innocent of wrong doing it is not right to kill them for any reason. (most stop just short of that and make allowances for mothers health, but this is such a tiny amount of abortions that it hardly counts) By contrast, those in Iraq are either guilty of intending to harm the US, or innocents that we are taking all precaution to prevent their deaths, but accidents happen. (and it isn't right to count deaths by terrorists just because the US is now there)
Open your mind. Look at what these people really believe, not some strawman argument that you want them to believe so you can consider yourself better.
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:4, Insightful)
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actualy read anything, you would notice most of the disenting opinions beleived that competency should be established on a case by case basis. This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
It's simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of concentrating on how to stop people from copying movies and music, the responsible industries should be concentrating on how to ensure that people are willing to buy their goods. I buy my digital music because it is easy, high quality, and has DRM that I can live with (from iTunes anyway). I also buy the movies I like because the format is always higher quality than what I can download. Who wants to watch some divx compressed screener on a nice home theater system?
Movie and music companies should concentrate on what they do, make movies and music, not on stifling technology.
Re:Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:5, Insightful)
From reading up on gun control, that's a deeply flawed argument. A hammer is a fairly general purpose tool for bashing things. A screwdriver is designed for screwing in screws. With a little imagination it can be turned to other purposes - opening paint pots, stirring paint, stabbing people. An AK-47 Assault rifle is a tool designed for the purpose of killing people. It is quite difficult to put it to any other purpose, and while doing so, the danger of someone accidentally getting killed anyway is quite high.
Napster 1 went down because the court was convinced that it wasn't a general purpose tool, but specifically a copyright-infringment tool. That's still the issue at stake.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:1, Insightful)
Incorrect. Killing a non-someone for the crimes of someone else. It's only fair that there be a sliding scale of morality on this one, because there is no magical moment. No chorus of angels sings during the seconds that sperm DNA merges with egg DNA. On the other hand, neither does it happen as soon as a fetus leaves a woman's body.
You need to look at what makes us seem "human". Do we hold a great deal of affection for DNA? It's just a chemical; it doesn't think, love, etc. Do you cry when your skin cells die? Do we cry when unique combinations of DNA (all around us, every day) die? Do we pity all of the embryos that miscarry before the woman even realizes that she was pregnant (about half of them)? And most importantly, do we find it acceptable to kill one of a pair of identical twins, since their DNA is the same?
It's not DNA that makes a person; it is who they are. Their thoughts, their emotions, their hopes and dreams. This doesn't appear overnight. It doesn't appear at the hour of conception, at birth, or at their 18th birthday. It builds up. There should be no issue at all with aborting an embryo that doesn't have a single neuron; however, a slow moral issue should build up as cognition increases, leading to a general rule that abortion at the end of pregnancy should only be allowed in the case of a risk to the mother's life.
Interestingly enough, this corresponds fairly well to our current abortion laws. You'd be hard-pressed to find where you can just go into a clinic at month 8 and say "I want an abortion"; on the other hand, getting morning after pills isn't hard at all. And it's a reasonable compromise; if you can't decide within a few months whether you should carry the potential child, something is probably wrong with you.
Lastly, there are some serious problems with just a general ban on abortion. Suicides. Coat hangers. Etc. I once knew someone who was raped when she was a teenager and starved herself until she miscarried so that her parents would never find out that she was pregnant. I can't even imagine this being a general situation. It's not something to take lightly... at all.
Re:I'm not confident -- Oh, The Children, sob... (Score:5, Insightful)
as in, the goverment is empowered to execute citizens who wrong the goverment, and minors (non-voting folks that they are) aren't CITIZENS as such, they are chattel, with some rights, but damn few privledges, and in exchange for not getting those privledges, they are not liable to the same extent.
What I want to know? if a minor is tried as an adult, and aquitted, does he get to vote? why not?? it's been acceptably proven that the individual in question is as responsible as an adult....
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
Re:I hate professors (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between cooperating with law enforcement, and being a form of corporate police for someone elses copyrighted works.
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Frivolous abuse of the court's time! (Score:3, Insightful)
An AK-47 is only one model of thousands. It is to a degree a specialized version of a gun and it's designers probably considered lethiality when they designed it. But even an AK-47 can be used for sporting purposes as a rifle to shoot targets. It can be used to kill "varments" and can probably be used to hunt some game in some states. In short, it has uses that do not involve killing people!
The 30-06 (thirty ought six) was originally designed as an army rifle, so was the
Pistols seem to be more designed to be killers. They can easily be concieled and can be better used in close quarters. Yet I've found them fun to shoot at targets, I've never used one in anger and while I don't own one, I can see why some people want them in their homes for self defense.
As a tool, it is how you use it that matters. It is not always morally or legally wrong to take a life. Self defense is probably the best example of this, war is possibly another example (although I'd quibble about that in certain instances). Police officers carry side-arms knowing that they may some day be called on to use them, for self defense or to save another person's life. It is the person who makes the judgment call to use the tool, not the weapon.
The Napster1 decision questioned the business model - and it was found defective. The current issue is not attacking just the business model but the actual protocol. When you think of the scope of what P2P involves, it goes beyond simple file sharing. It is the very bedrock of how computers talk to one another. In some respects, attacking the protocol is a little bit like trying to outlaw a language! At the very base level P2P of some sort is required any time two computers talk to each other. Web pages, IM, FTP, and email all use peer-protocols to get the job done.
One of my biggest concerns is that a court won't quite grasp this detail or perhaps a luddite judge will understand it and decide to derail the net because of his personal fears. Stuff like this happens and it takes years to fix.
Still all in all, this issue is a lawsuit filed by a business asking the court to protec their business. That part is understandable. But rather than finding and pursuing individual entities and proving their cause, which is their responsibility they are trying a short-cut. They want to outlaw the technology that makes so many good things. This makes them luddites, afraid of progress and change. They need to adjust to changes or be left in the dust. They don't need the courts to do this, they need a good, solid business plan.
Re:Analogy time, boys and girls. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take some issue with your points though:
1) a)the efficacy of a course of action is irrelevant as to it's legitimacy as a morally acceptible course of action. I cannot poop gold; but this is of no bearing to a discussion of whether I should or not.
1) b)the fact that the US federal and state governments constantly try to get round the constitution's limits on their powers does not invalidate the legitimacy of that document. I have no doubt that any attempt to overthrow the US government from within would be met with crushing force. This is largely the point of the ammendment: to try and prevent the Govt. from supressing legitimate dissent with force. It has probably now failed. The Republic is probably now an Empire. What can you do?
2) a)Most people in the world accept the principle that sometimes it is legitimate to use deadly force to act for the greater good. I think the Mahatma put it best when he said "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence." Obviously, he prefered when possible the third way, of non-violence, but he accepted that sometimes violence was, regretably, necessary.
If you disagree with him, and do not believe that the use of force against other humans is ever legitimate, no matter how many Jews they gas, then indeed, guns are probably not legitimate. What did Monty Python say again? "Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."
2) b)If it is acceptable for the police to have weapons to defend themselves, how much more so is it for the people to have weapons to defend themselves? Particularly since the police are under no legal obligation to do anything to protect the people. You seem to have accidentally suggested another legitimate reason, whoops!
Re:Substantial non-infringing uses (Score:2, Insightful)
P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not confident (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yeah, there are certainly some benefits to selling your soul to the devil. It's a lot easier to move ahead by lying and stealing than through hard work. But I'd far rather be an honest, humble person than a rich cheater doomed to hell.
Applying "Most Use is Illegal" Argument to Email (Score:2, Insightful)
The media companies are asserting that if a technology is primarily used for illegal activity, then it should be banned.
Since there are statistics showing that a majority of email is now SPAM, which is illegal, shouldn't we have to shut down email as well?
Re:Substantial non-infringing uses (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that each country has its own copyright laws and laws regulating what is considered a crime over the internet. For example, here in Canada it's illegal to upload copyright files, but not illegal to download them. And when it's P2P, the argument can be made that nobody is uploading (since the P2P service is not being used to transport media to or or store media on a server or webpage) and everyone is downloading. The Internet is a means of international communication, and P2P networks serve not only the United States but the entire world. How can MGM argue that tools like Grokster and its like do not have the legal right to exist if the "illegal" actions that take place under services are not illegal everywhere? MGM could potentially argue that stricter bans/filtering/whatnot are necessary within areas in which downloading of copyrighted material is a crime, or that Grokster work with law enforcement in a way similar to phone companies, but that's about all.