Grokster Shutting Down?

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo news is reporting that Grokster is shutting down. In a settlement with Hollywood and the music industry Grokster will be permanently banned from 'participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files and requires the company to stop giving away its software.'" A continuation on their deal with Mashboxx, or the end of grokster entirely?

Re:Quite simply...

[timster]

Posts asking "how does the first post get modded redundant" should hereafter be modded "Redundant", as this question has been asked and answered over and over again.

They will not Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for the movie and record industries P2P already exists. Killing the specific tools, in this case grokster, is not going to end the treats and the downloading. They are going to find that in the end they are going to have to give up against an overwhelming force that is too much for them. They have already killed, or at least neutered, Napster and now they got grokster but they still will face more, such as the current bittorrent and will face more in the future. As long as they do not provide what the clients want, and theft is not the main reason P2P exists, they are going to continue to face what they see as threats to their wellbeing

Historical Precedent when Xerox was Outlawed

[srobert]

Back in the mid-twentieth century, a company called Xerox was producing a machine which could be used to illegally copy copyrighted materials in books. The courts ruled that the company had to stop making and selling the illegal technology and pay damages to the publishers. At least that's how I remember it.

Analogy with guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessee, the guns themselves are just tools, they can be used properly or they can be used improperly. Without knowing the relative proportion of usage of guns in both cases I would state without proof that the latter isnt a miniscule minority.

I believe replacing "guns" with "file sharing apps" wouldnt make the statements above invalid.

So the way I see it, the only real difference is guns have a huge corrupt lobby group FOR it, while file sharing apps have a huge corrupt lobby group AGAINST it. Ethically/morally, I don't see a difference.

Re:Timeline:

[Anonymous Coward]

More like:

1980: We'll add copy protection to games. Piracy stopped.
1985: We'll physically damage disks as part of our copy protection. Piracy stopped.
1987: We'll make you look up keywords in a game manual before the game starts up. Piracy stopped.
1990: Ooh shiny! We can put games on CDs. No one will be able to store that much info on their teeny hard drives. Piracy stopped.

Re:Dingdingding!

[fwarren]

Yup

Follow the money

The whole outcry against file sharing comes down to control. Most money in music is made on the back catalog. He who owns the distribution channel owns the back catalog and makes the money.

When the next Beatles, or Elvis shows up on the scene, they want to see them signed with a major label, not issuing their CD's via bittorrent, other p2p and their website.

Just like the agents in the matrix, they control all the doors...and they want to keep it that way.

Re:Propaganda from the AP

[tepples]

Peer-to-Peer networks are evil except for "Bittorrent type"[sic] networks?

This is what the entertainment industry believes. A P2P file sharing system designed to preserve accountability would allow infringements to be easily traced to a perpetrator, discouraging rather than "inducing" infringement. Under BitTorrent, it takes a person to run a tracker, make a .torrent file, and upload the .torrent file to the tracker, and no express provisions are made for anonymity. Thus BitTorrent makes it easier to trace an act of infringement than Gnutella or KaZaA or eMule does, making it more likely to prevail under the MGM v. Grokster test.

Insightful? No. FUD!

[kiddailey]

Why the hell was that moderated +5 insightful? It's so full of holes it isn't even funny.

"I don't believe there are any real (as in frequently used) legitimate reasons for P2P networks to exist other than to distribute material illegally. ... I'm not saying that it's not possible to use P2P networks for legit reasons, and I'm not saying that on occasion people do obtain legal materials from them."

I run a community gaming site that catalogs maps for First Person Shooters. With over 10 GB of maps and growing, P2P combined with magnet links is an incredibly valuable method of file distribution that doesn't require loads of cash, server cycles and bandwidth to operate and maintain. It boasts hundreds of downloads a week. I'd hardly call that "occassional."

Really though, it's not a good way for an author to market something (no tracking, no content control, no targeting, etc), and it's not a convenient way for the consumer to retrieve something (file descriptors can be poor, you get queued up, you have to share back to get good rates with some services, etc).

No tracking, content control and targeting? Not convenient? You have to share back to get good rates? File descriptions are poor?

Any qualified web admin can implement tracking on the web site that's listing the download whether it be magnet, torrent or otherwise. As well, some P2P apps provide limited download tracking. BitTorrent on it's own does not provide tracking either (you'd have to analyze torrent downloads in the server log files), so your point is kind of moot.

Not convenient? Ever heard of a magnet link? [wikipedia.org] You put a link on your page. Clicking it launches the user's P2P app and starts the download. How is that not convenient? On a comparison to BitTorrent I'd say it's just as, if not more convenient (I don't have to delete old torrent files with magnet links). Compared to HTTP downloads, all P2P tech is obviously less convenient since you have to download P2P software.

Share back to get good rates? Funny... that's how BitTorrent works and a good number of other P2P networks don't.

The one giant exception here is Bittorrent ... encourages the distribution of *legitamate* content because it a) allows the author to create and maintain a torrent that isn't connected to some vast network of crap, b) torrents can be "distributed" via websites, which is where you want your consumer to be, c) the consumer gets faster downloads, d) the author pays for less bandwidth.

As I mentioned, magnet links [sourceforge.net] eliminate the problems of the "vast network of crap." They contain a file hash [sourceforge.net] similar to a torrent file and can contain one or more source seed server addresses. They can be put on a website just like any URL with the added benefit that they don't require you to have a one-to-one relationship of all your files to torrent files.

The fact that you even need to maintain and distribute torrent files is a pain. If I've got 4,000 files I want to distribute via BitTorrent, it requires that I maintain 4,000 torrent files. Granted, a software author may not have 4,000 files, but the requirement to maintain them still exists regardless.

The consumer only gets faster downloads with BitTorrent if they are able to get it configured and playing nice with their particular setup. Most, but not all, "average Joes" I've tried to sell BitTorrent on always complain about painful tweaking and crappy speeds because of it. This is primarily because BitTorrent requires you to upload back to the swarm, while others do not.

And a BitTorrent author only pays less for bandwidth if there are a large number of continually connected seeds and peers. If not, the

Re:Insightful? No. FUD!

[slackmaster2000]

Many of your arguments in favor of "traditional" P2P networks are very much the same as my arguments in favor Bittorrent. Your use of magnetic links to maintain your system is exactly why "bittorrent type" sharing is so beneficial.

My arguments against traditional P2P lie almost soley in their typical or originally intended use, which is to connect to the network with a client and start searching. This is not particularly convenient to the end user searching for legitimate content. It's much simpler for them to connect to your website and use your magnetic links, which is analogous to connecting to your website and clicking on torrent links.

If I had been more educated about magnetic links, I would have lumped them in with my arguments in favor of that type of file sharing.

probably close to a tie...

[zogger]

...percentage wise. Add up speeding, illegal lane change, driving to endanger, following too closely, failure to use turn signals, DUI and etc,etc, picky point and etc, the traffic on most interstates I have seen is well over 90% illegal. It's just more accepted and tolerated and indulged in by society at this point.

I think perhaps a better analogy might be booze prohibition way back when. Illegal as all get out, indulged by millions regularly, with highly selective harsh law enforcement.

Either way though your point is still valid. The only even half way answer I have for "the file sharing problem" is personal selective shunning. Onerous copyright compounded by gouging level prices, don't share it, don't patronize those concerns with your business either. Just say no, look for something else.

I hit a somewhat middle ground, against the ridiculous prices and vendor lockins with the **AAs products, so I only indulge with used or severely marked down pre recorded media, and those at a very low level. I have never downloaded one single thing that wasn't legal to do so, but I understand people's attitudes about it completely. You just lose all respect for a business that is so overwhelmingly run by and for crooks. There are exceptions of course, but not many.