Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Software The Courts Your Rights Online

Brazilian Court Bans P2P Software 216

Posted by Soulskill
from the next-up-cars-and-cheeseburgers dept.
Earlier this year, at the behest of an anti-piracy group consisting of the usual suspects from the recording industry, a Brazilian court ruled that a company named Cadare Information Technology must implement a filter on the P2P software they distributed on their website to weed out copyrighted content. Cadare was unable comply with the order because they didn't develop the software; they merely offered it for download. The case went back to court, and a Brazilian judge has now decided to ban distribution of the software because it can be used to assist copyright infringement. "He went on to suggest that any website offering the software alongside advertising (i.e, trying to profit from offering it) would be committing a crime, punishable by between two and four years in jail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brazilian Court Bans P2P Software

Comments Filter:
  • Is it time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Immostlyharmless (1311531) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:08PM (#29474091)
    to start killing the lawyers yet?
    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:02AM (#29474355)
      The number of them seems to be getting to the point where we're going to need to start culling them like deer. Perhaps a tag system ... say two per year per person. Ahhh ... I can almost see the BMW and Brooks Brothers logos up over the fireplace as you tell the grandkids "Yep, that one was a civil lawyer ... got him from 250 yards"
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jamstar7 (694492)

        The number of them seems to be getting to the point where we're going to need to start culling them like deer. Perhaps a tag system ... say two per year per person. Ahhh ... I can almost see the BMW and Brooks Brothers logos up over the fireplace as you tell the grandkids "Yep, that one was a civil lawyer ... got him from 250 yards"

        They mark trees to be culled with a big red X painted on them. Howbout we mark the lawyers with Bluetooth headsets?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Lawyers breed innovation.

      Would the technologies come up in the last few years if Napster wasn't banned?

      Keep banning the stuff. We'll come up with something more awesome.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Holy shit I finally get it. American "capitalism" has subtlety transformed from a system where competition breeds innovation in order to one-up your competition and be rewarded with increased profits, into a system where lawyers ban all kinds of crap to fuel sneaky and underhanded ways of skirting the "law" in order to screw everyone out of all of their money!

        It all makes sense now!!

        • Re:Is it time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by knarf (34928) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @04:13AM (#29475191) Homepage

          Not really, no. This story is not about 'American capitalism', unless you want to add Brazil as a state to the Union which I'm sure they'd be less than happy about.

          If you see an economy as an organism you'll see that that economy/that organism suffers from some of the same ailments as a live organism. As soon as the organism gets successful there will be parasites which try to hop along for the ride, taking from the organism without giving back. The world economy is quite successful in most part, which has lead to the rise of a whole host of parasitic species. Some of them are easily recognized as they are the common class of criminal, from pickpocket to burglar to bank robber. Others are not as easily recognized because they have both adapted to the host as well as changed the host to make themselves be unrecognizable. In the latter class is where you'll find those lawyers, the bonus-grabbing old boy network, the self-serving politicians and other leaches.

          In an organism you can act in several ways to combat a parasite infestation. You can try to kill the parasites, help the organism's immune system to recognize them and thus indirectly kill them or you can try to make the organism a less hospitable host to the parasite.

          It is clear that the first option is not a choice in a civilized society. The second and third choices would be usable though: point out the parasites to society and change society to be less hospitable to them. As the parasite infestation is very deep and wide, especially in those organs of society which are responsible for directing the immune system (politics and law) this will be a hard task. Hard, but not impossible. Not all organs are infested, find out which have yet held the parasites at bay and use those to eradicate them from the rest. That is easier said than done but is seems the only way to clear out the mess without killing the organism, the civilized society which we want to live in.

          • by mspohr (589790)
            Good rant but I 'fixed' it to include some more culpable criminals:

            If you see an economy as an organism you'll see that that economy/that organism suffers from some of the same ailments as a live organism. As soon as the organism gets successful there will be parasites which try to hop along for the ride, taking from the organism without giving back. The world economy is quite successful in most part, which has lead to the rise of a whole host of parasitic species. Some of them are easily recognized as they

      • Keep banning the stuff. We'll come up with something more awesome.

        When you do, you'll also find out soon enough that it's been patented for a good few years before you found it by some patent troll.

        • THAT is the reason for open source.

          Speaking of which - wasn't Brazil in the news not terribly long ago, for officially promoting some odd flavor of Linux? Their story was similar to China, as I recall - almost no one (percentage wise) can afford Windows, so everyone pirates it. In response to some RIAA-like lobbying, the government said they were going to come down hard on pirates, and promote a Portuguese language Linux.

          Maybe I just dreamed that... Or, maybe Brazil isn't quite as authoritarian as China,

      • Keep banning the stuff. We'll come up with something more awesome.

        Nope. If you ban the stuff, all they need to do is to come up with something different that's not banned (yet).

        If you don't ban the stuff the competition needs to come up with something *better*.

      • by citizenr (871508)
        Yes you are right. I heard that it was in fact a Lawyer that wrote Napster in the first place ... you MORON.
    • Re:Is it time.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @05:50AM (#29475497) Journal
      It is far too late...
      [rant] Noticed how 2/3 of slashdot news today is about the legality aspect of one thing or the other ? Noticed how we spend more time on the issues of free speech, copyright violation, net neutrality than on actual coding ? The cool stuff is out, the dull is in. Granted, a coder, a hacker, a security expert, has to know some legal things, but it should not waste half of our time. Life is too short for this. Increasingly it feels like knowing the law bears little correlation to not being charged and that rational thinking and common sense bears far less importance in the judicial system. I wish we were spending less time being concerned on these issues and we could keep focus on nifty reverse engineering projects or amateurish robotics. I guess what I am trying to say is ...

      FUCK. THIS. SHIT.
      [/rant]
      • by nurb432 (527695)

        [rant]
        Noticed how 2/3 of slashdot news today is about the legality aspect of one thing or the other ? Noticed how we spend more time on the issues of free speech, copyright violation, net neutrality than on actual coding ? The cool stuff is out, the dull is in.
        [/rant]

        No, this is the world we live in today and this 'dull stuff' will directly impact your ability to do the 'cool stuff' if its allowed to continue down this path.

        If the other side wins, your 'cool stuff' will not exist. So quit bitching and go out and help.

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        Amen.

        Worry about the quality of the fucking software. If the software is good enough, people will come, and the legal issues will resolve themselves.

      • Noticed how 2/3 of slashdot news today is about the legality aspect of one thing or the other ? Noticed how we spend more time on the issues of free speech, copyright violation, net neutrality than on actual coding ?

        If one were a bit more cynical, one would draw the conclusion that the reason we see mostly law stories on Slashdot is that they generate more comments, thus generating more page views, thus generating more ad revenue. You shouldn't neglect the part that sensationalist journalism plays in what we see.

    • Not yet. First you have to start shooting messengers and feet.

    • by dbet (1607261)
      By "lawyers", do you really mean "judges"?

      I expect lawyers to do whatever they can to help their client. But I also expect judges to not be douchebags, and on that count, I'm often proven wrong.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Does this mean it's still legal to download other P2P software?
    What's the point of this ruling?

    • by causality (777677) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:41PM (#29474245)

      What's the point of this ruling?

      It's not quite pointless. The purpose seems to be the creation of a "sacred" status for copyright law, something that would cause anyone to think twice about creating anything that might have some indirect role in copyright infringement. In other words it's designed to intimidate, which explains why no allowance seems to have been made for the fact that peer-to-peer software can also have legitimate uses, like the distribution of Linux ISOs.

      From the summary:

      Earlier this year, at the behest of an anti-piracy group consisting of the usual suspects from the recording industry, a Brazilian court ruled that a company named Cadare Information Technology must implement a filter on the P2P software they distributed on their website to weed out copyrighted content. Cadare was unable comply with the order because they didn't develop the software; they merely offered it for download. The case went back to court, and a Brazilian judge has now decided to ban distribution of the software because it can be used to assist copyright infringement.

      This is like banning hammers because some murderers have used them to bludgeon people to death, or banning cars because a few criminals have used them as getaway vehicles. It also ignores the infeasibility of successfully filtering all copyrighted content in all digital forms with no false positives or false negatives. Either those judges are morons who have no idea about the glaring flaws that are easily pointed out, or the absurdity of this ruling is a deliberate component of the Machiavellian "make an example of them" style of authoritarian thinking that seems to be universally exhibited by pro-copyright interests. In fact, the same could be said of the DMCA in the USA and the legislators who supported it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It is one thing to pirate content, it is another to make money from pirated content.

        This ruling is against the second, and the title wrongly suggests that all P2P software was banned, which would not make sense. Find a pointless discussion that the way of distributing content is irrelevant below.

        • Yes. Besides, this only applies to one of Brazil's states (Paraná) and only to that specific website.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Isn't it more like banning guns because the majority of the users use it to kill people instead of wildlife or instead as for self defense?
    • Probably to harm the Brazilian IT industry. Lawyers and judges didn't notice yet that their power stops at the next international border while the internet does not.

  • Why just p2p? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KeithIrwin (243301) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:14PM (#29474117)

    Firefox gets used for piracy a lot too. Why not ban it?

    I'm not really clear why the courts have been treating peer to peer software as different from client-server software. My best guess is that in a client-server model, they see the server as being responsible for the illegal content, but in the peer-to-peer model, they blame the software for the illegal content. Really, this doesn't make a bit of sense, especially in light of the fact that there is no technical distinction in any TCP/IP protocols which differentials which computers are "servers" from which are "clients" or "peers". It's just a model of network interaction which exists in the minds of the software developers and users.

    I'm curious if this will change if and when judges understand the underlying technology better.

    • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shark72 (702619) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:40PM (#29474243)

      "I'm curious if this will change if and when judges understand the underlying technology better."

      Statements like this are like Chicken Soup for the Pirate's Soul. We convince ourselves that it's all because the people in charge just don't understand the technology. I completely understand; this is a much more acceptable situation than the judges understanding the technology just fine.

      There's a huge disconnect here. When Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and most recently The Pirate Bay went down, file-sharing fans quickly pointed out that it was obviously because the legal professionals don't know what they were doing. "Just like Google!" they shouted. "A web browser is P2P! Let's ban guns, too!".

      The problem is this: I've read all of the rulings (I'm kind of a nerd like that) and it's generally clear that the lawyers and the judges understand the technology just fine. They might not be able to code a P2P client themselves or even mount a Linux volume, but reading the documents makes it very clear that they know exactly how the technology works and how it's being used.

      You can use Occam's Razor here: it's a hard scenario to swallow that there simply aren't enough defense lawyers who understand P2P technology. If the law really worked like so many Slashdotters think it does -- a legal world in which intent and usage aren't relevant -- then wouldn't all of these judgments be thrown out once some legal folks as smart as you took up the cases and clearly showed that it was all a matter of the judge not understanding the technology? A simple matter of a smart person explaining to the appeal court that a pirate torrent site is just like Google, a P2P client is just like a web browser?

      The ironic thing here is that if you ask any lawyer with a background in copyright law, they'll be happy to explain to you exactly why TPB, etc. aren't exactly like Google and why Kazaa and Morpheus weren't just like a web browser. It's actually even pretty easy to understand by folks who don't have a JD. Yet we collective Slashdotters just continue to stamp our metaphorical feet and pine for the day when judges just understand. "Substantial non-infringing uses," "contributory infringement," "vicarious infringement" and even basic principles like mens rea whoosh past us like a late summer breeze, while we close our eyes and dream of a day when legal professionals will finally be as smart as we are.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MrMista_B (891430)

        So, then, explain to me why it is impossible to use Google in a way that infringes copyright.

        And, if you cannot, why then it is different from these other search providers.

        You are incapable of doing so.

        • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by whoever57 (658626) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:02AM (#29474345) Journal

          So, then, explain to me why it is impossible to use Google in a way that infringes copyright.

          And, if you cannot, why then it is different from these other search providers.

          It has nothing to do with technical differences and everything to do with how the tools are used. Yes, P2P has legitimate uses and is used by many for legitimate trading of files. However, the dominant use is illegitimate trading of files.

          • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Totenglocke (1291680) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:31AM (#29474435)
            One of the dominate uses of the internet is viewing porn (not going into any potential copyright on said porn). Does that mean that the internet should be banned under existing obscenity laws?
          • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:42AM (#29474477) Journal
            The only reason its dominant use is illegitimate trading of files is because it's popular, period.

            Invent an efficient file transfer mechanism... one that can beat the efficiency of anything invented so far, and if it ever happens to catch on with any legitimate community, I can guarantee that it will also be appropriated by people who do not give regard for copyright, and in short order its predominant use would be for illegitimate file sharing.

          • By that logic, that a technology should be illegal if it's mostly used for illegal means, you can outlaw pretty much every "fringe" technology that does not come into common use. You can outlaw newsgroups. You can outlaw shell access. You can even outlaw FTP. What's left is http and "browsers", simply because it's about the only technology the internet uses that came into widespread use. Maybe ICQ, but it's already a gray area because it's often used by pedos to hit on teenagers.

            You might notice that pretty

          • by Krneki (1192201)
            Isn't the whole Internet used mainly for illegal stuff? I mean 80% of the mails are spam, but you don't see anyone banning mail servers.
          • The majority of people who buy sports cars use these cars to speed. All sports car capable of speeding should be banded.

            Of course you can still speed in a normal car....

            And you can download illegal music and movies with any web browser (Rapid share and co).
        • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:5, Informative)

          by shark72 (702619) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:02AM (#29474347)

          You're setting up a false premise here -- nobody believes that one can't use Google to infringe. We're all smart people here and we owe it to ourselves to not fall into these sort of silly traps.

          If you're genuinely curious why "just like Google" doesn't work, Google on "substantial non-infringing uses." It's a fundamental legal test for contributory copyright infringement.

          Turning it around, if you're wondering if Google and similar facilities are in danger of being held liable for the actions of their users, this is an important one to understand:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea [wikipedia.org]

          Another critical thing to understand is that safe harbors (the DMCA being the most relevant) are, to mangle the metaphor, a two-way street. Yeah, they'll protect you, but only if you make use of them. For example, Google and many other sites honor DMCA takedown requests. If you're running a P2P site and you know that filtering out pirated material would put you out of business, you don't have the luxury of ignoring takedown requests simply because honoring them would affect your site's viability -- and excuses like "I'm too busy" or "I don't have the manpower to handle all those requests" don't hold any weight with the court. To take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor that Google and so many others enjoy, you must take active steps to make use of it.

          That appears to be similar to what happened in the case described in the article.

          HTH.

          • Except this is *Brazil*, where DMCA doesn't apply...

            • by shark72 (702619)

              Just to say what the AC said, but a bit more gently: you're correct, of course, that the DMCA is a US law, but it's an example of a safe harbor law. Safe harbor laws are found all over the world, and in various areas of the law -- not just in matters of copyright. Wikipedia has a good article on safe harbors if you'd like to learn more. Either way, it's a safe bet that Brazilian law has some sort of safe harbor provision for contributory copyright infringement that protects people who act in good faith.

              The

      • It's not quite chicken soup anyway because it's intentionally a question. There's no reason to believe that it necessarily will get better if and when they understand the technology better. It's merely a possibility.

        But frankly, no, they don't understand the technology. They get the basics of how it works, but they don't understand the ways in which it is similar or different from other technology. Having read a lot of the decisions, I've yet to see one which says, "Well, this can be used for infringeme

        • Re:Why just p2p? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shark72 (702619) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:42AM (#29474471)

          "I've yet to see one which says, "Well, this can be used for infringement, but technologically, it's no different from other programs which are not used for infringement"."

          But how would that be relevant -- and more to the point, how would it help the case?

          Pirate tracker sites share much of the same technology as, say, legaltorrents.com. The latter gets a pass while the pirate sites go down because of things unrelated to technology: the actions and intent of the people running them. This is one of those fundamental legal things, unrelated to the level of technical experience of the person making the judgement.

          "Certainly that's been what's been behind the decision to ban "peer-to-peer software" on a lot of private networks. And yet, this same logic isn't applied to other technologies which have also been used for piracy like ftp, tftp, newsgroups or http."

          Because it's irrelevant. It's about actions and intent. And we should acknowledge the people who have been busted for serving up pirated files via http and ftp.

          "The judges aren't idiots. They have a basic understand of what's going on and how these programs work, but they don't have a deep understanding of how the internet actual works. If they did, at least some of the decisions would have to be written quite differently."

          Well, to be fair, your belief is a common one among Slashdotters: the problem is not that we don't sufficiently understand copyright law, but that nobody in authority -- not one person -- sufficiently understands the technology. If they did, then they'd throw out all of this "actions" and "intent" and "safe harbor" and "substantial non-infringing uses" mumbo jumbo and simply understand that since a warez tracker or Kazaa trades packets in much the same way as other technologies, then the operators can't be held liable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by NickFortune (613926)

          To use a metaphor, if some particular car brand became a favorite of bank robbers, it would be ridiculous to go after the makers of that car.

          I think I'll play Devil's Advocate: Suppose someone made a car with bulletproof bodywork, a battering ram, and forward-mounted oxy-acetylene cutting torches. And then marketed it at people who "wanted to make some out-of-hours withdrawals from their local bank". Sure, you could use it to get the weekly shopping in, but you'd have a hard time arguing that such was the

      • by petrus4 (213815)

        Statements like this are like Chicken Soup for the Pirate's Soul. We convince ourselves that it's all because the people in charge just don't understand the technology. I completely understand; this is a much more acceptable situation than the judges understanding the technology just fine.

        If there was anyone on the bench, anywhere, who wasn't of a sufficiently advanced age that senility is a serious risk, then I might be able to agree with the above statement.

        The truly fear and depression induced thing about Slashdot, is just how many of its' readers appear to have drunk the government or corporate Kool-Aid with regard to things like copyright, and actively defend and advocate the government/cartel position.

        You don't understand that all you're potentially doing, is hurting not only yourselve

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shark72 (702619)

          "The truly fear and depression induced thing about Slashdot, is just how many of its' readers appear to have drunk the government or corporate Kool-Aid with regard to things like copyright, and actively defend and advocate the government/cartel position."

          Don't look at me. I think copyright terms and (in particular) statutory limits are hugely of control. Understanding how something works certainly isn't drinking Kool-Aid. I'm agnostic about piracy; I certainly did enough of it when I was a teenager.

          Dislik

          • by petrus4 (213815)

            Disliking copyright law is no excuse for not understanding it. Notice how the same arguments keep coming up and Slashdotters keep getting surprised? The "it's just like Google" fallacy has been around for as long as Google itself, and yet people are still surprised that it's not a magic bullet.

            The characteristic which isohunt.com and Google have in common, is the fact that they can both potentially be used to find both infringing and non-infringing information. In that sense, they are both neutral. I believe, "common carrier," is the phrase that is customarily used.

            I can set up a torrent seed, and publicise it through isohunt, for FreeBSD's latest ISO file, (non-infringing) or I can likewise use it to publicise a seed for a DVD/CD rip of the latest Call of Duty game. (definitely infringing)

            Like

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            If file-sharing enthusiasts want to change the law, first they must understand it.

            Civil disobedience does not require full understanding of the law[s] one disobeys. Just disobey it. Done! Civil disobedience is a useful and powerful means of combating bad laws, if enough people participate.

      • by gilgongo (57446)

        "Substantial non-infringing uses," "contributory infringement," "vicarious infringement" and even basic principles like mens rea whoosh past us like a late summer breeze

        I don't doubt that you do understand the various subtleties of infringement, but the fact is that these principles are designed to support a system that is fundamentally unjust, anti-social, and culturally corrosive in the extreme.

        Put it this way: if you knew as much about the history of copyright, and how a simple industrial regulation of t

      • by flibuste (523578)

        Very interesting comment and a good point regarding defense lawyers. But since you've read the proceedings, can you elaborate on what judges understood that lawyers didn't and what slashdotters don't get when mixing copyright laws and technological awareness?

        I'm not trying to poke, I didn't fully understand your point and I'm interested because I wrongly assume as most of people here that indeed lawmakers, judges and lawyers don't know or understand much in those fields. I come from a country where lawmak

      • by Kjella (173770)

        In short, there are very strong non-infringing uses of people sharing long series of 0s and 1s. But there seems to be strong opposition towards that view of the world, even if they somewhat understand technology it seems to be they think it's like sending books and pictures and CDs or DVDs through the Internet. It's not a terrible understanding, but very few seem to understand that data can be morphed in any way, over any protocol. They think like a DVD must always look like a DVD, so we can set up a checkp

        • by shark72 (702619)

          You make some excellent points.

          Safe harbor laws are written to ease the burden as much as possible on hosting providers, but they can't resolve people of all responsibility. When these sorts of things go to court, a big question is whether the plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure that the service complies. The courts typically have pretty good BS detectors and can figure out if somebody's acting in good faith. But the process isn't perfect.

          Agreed with you that there's more than one example of somebo

    • by psnyder (1326089)

      I'm not really clear why the courts have been treating peer to peer software as different from client-server software.

      Because most people (judges and juries included) don't understand what you just said.
      So lawyers try to explain it to them while spinning the explanation towards their side.

    • The same reason why this whole thing is an issue at all: Control.

      With client-server you have one server and many clients. With P2P you have as many servers as you have clients. It is far easier to shut down a single server than to hunt down a few million users.

  • sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:15PM (#29474123) Journal

    Ruining someone's life for 2-4 years because the Brazilian court system is dabbling in pre-crime... Kind of makes you wonder why society considers the copyright system an equitable trade...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jamstar7 (694492)

      Ruining someone's life for 2-4 years because the Brazilian court system is dabbling in pre-crime... Kind of makes you wonder why society considers the copyright system an equitable trade...

      Scary part of it is, something just like this can happen here in the States if the Usual Suspects decide to spend the money and buy up some more Congresscritters. Why buy off a judge to get a precident set when you can just buy the Congresscritters and get the laws you want passed?

  • Torrentfreak.com. Real news for real people.

  • by meerling (1487879) on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:17PM (#29474131)
    Guess he'll have to ban the Internet...
          "...because it can be used to assist copyright infringement..."
    • And xerox machines.

      Guess he'll have to ban the Internet... "...because it can be used to assist copyright infringement..."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:32PM (#29474187)

    Let's ban all computers while we're at it too "because it can be used to assist copyright infringement". And without a computer I won't be able to run the software. Oh and we need to collect money everytime a person sings a song in their head. Because the record label is not being paid for the content since you heard it on the radio and just kept replaying it in your head. We'll put chips in your heads to monitor what songs you've played in your head every month and send you a bill on itunes.

    • Bill 'em in iTunes, eh? I'd be ok with that--if computers were banned I wouldn't be able to pay through iTunes!
  • The internet in its entirety is "p2p" by nature. This is what differentiates it from TV, radio, or any other medium for that matter, and it is provided "for profit", by these shady companies called "internet service providers".

    This judge has just ruled his nation into the stone age, placing it behind even remote african villages in terms of telecom structure.

    I predict a large number of ISP's dragged into court and shut down using this precedent.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18, 2009 @11:45PM (#29474273)

    Should the judge be castrated, because his penis can be used for rape?

    • by jamstar7 (694492)

      Should the judge be castrated, because his penis can be used for rape?

      I know women who believe that. Never bothered dating them, they were just too weird for me...

    • by krelian (525362)

      But what if for 100 out of 99 times that he used his penis it was for rape? Should we ban him then?

  • Sure, a hammer can be used for legitimate purposes but we all know how deadly a hammer can be when you want to hurt somebody. Ban hammers now so we'll all be safer.
  • Well, lets see...

    CD burners: only pirates use those to make copies of disks

    DVR: makes illegal copies of shows

    MP3/4 players: plays copies that are likely illegal

    blank media: odds are it is going to be used to make illegal copies

    mass storage: who needs over a few MEG, any more and you must be using it to store illegal music/movies/software

    printer: you could print out books cutting out the publisher

    computers: used to copy music/movies/software and share them

    email/mail/pigeons with flash drives: used to send il

    • by mpe (36238)
      When it comes right down to it the only way to stop anything from "assist[ing] copyright infringement" is to ban all energy, without movement data cannot be transferred hence no copies! Now how much energy will it take to cool Brazil down to absolute zero?

      You'd only really need to do that to the lawyers.
  • so...basically, the download page for the p2p software can't have any advertising.

    (wonder if the judge mentioned whether or not the website can't have ads at all...or just "alongside"...anyone speak/read Portuguese?)

    either way, I still think that's stupid logic....streets are used for a multitude of law-breaking purposes, including copyright infringement (how do you think people transport counterfeit goods? an Asgard teleporter?), not to mention, prostitution, kidnapping, drug-running.

    And by that logic...th

  • Whoa there, hold on a sec before modding down! =D. Peer-to-Peer does have legal uses but the fact is that in the majority of uses it is for copyright infringement. Copyright is a good thing. It keeps people from stealing GNU software for example - they can't copy and close someone else's effort. I believe in Open and I ultimately believe that Open in general will prevail. P2P is slowing this inevitability. When someone steals a Closed product they are diminishing the demand and therefore development o
    • Both Open and Closed rely on the same foundation of copyright.

      Yes, which is why some of use use public domain dedications and the CC0 waiver rather than those "some rights reserved" licenses.

      • by headkase (533448)
        Some rights are reserved as protection in todays landscape from predators. Hopefully we'll see a day when as you say it is just unnecessary. BSD for the win!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Totenglocke (1291680)

      Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. For example. I'm a gamer (among other things) so I need Windows. If I pirated it (I don't, but this is hypothetical), it wouldn't be "slowing the progress of Linux" because, as great as Linux is, it's not good for gaming. Yes, I've run games in Wine, but until everything runs fine and it's easier to install games than it is for Kanye to piss p

      • by smoker2 (750216)
        OSS isn't supposed to cater to everybodys whims. It exists so that you can satisfy your own whims. Stop moaning and do it yourself. The whole market share thing is the bleating of sheeple who are conditioned to a top down consumer culture. The market share of open source will only go up as the number of people who have both enough intelligence and are prepared to get off their asses and do something, goes up. So the "pitiful" market share of OSS is a fairly accurate indicator of the number of mindless drone
        • by mark-t (151149)
          People who gripe about Linux not being suitable for games fall into one of two categories. Either they do not have the required programming skills to be able to make Linux more suitable for games or else they are simply too lazy to. Your response seems geared only for people in the latter group. How would you address the former?
        • So, in your world, no one should be doctors, lawyers (I'm with you on that one), mechanics, engineers, or countless other professions so that they can spend the years required to be a good enough programmer to write and OS that does what they want because narcissistic pricks like you think that you're the only person in the world that matters?

          People like you bitch about how MS is so "evil", yet you refuse to put much effort into thing that normal users actually WANT, so a lot of people that don't give a cra

      • Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. ... I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.

        Oh, for a (-1, Missing The Point) moderation...

  • I haven't been following WOW at all, but don't they use BitTorrent for distributing their updates? Will they ban Opera for including BitTorrent support in their browser too? Imagine all the lobbying required for application vendors to have their P2P-enabled software to be "legal".
  • by noidentity (188756) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @12:56AM (#29474511)
    So all of the following are now illegal in Brazil, since they can be used to assist copyright infringement: Firefox [mozilla.com], Internet Explorer [microsoft.com], Opera [opera.com], Safari [apple.com], Windows [microsoft.com], Mac OS X [apple.com], Linux [linux.org], Filezilla [filezilla-project.org], the cp Unix command [wikipedia.org], etc.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Blizzard WOW updater is a bittorrent client. So the main way of downloading those sometimes massive patches is illegal .

  • It's a dangerous place to be when governments tell people what they can and can't communicate and how they may or may not communicate that information. Every other industry adapts to market conditions except the content industries. All they do is lobby governments so that they can maintain their business model and not go the way of the wagon wheel makers.
    • by cpghost (719344)

      Every other industry adapts to market conditions except the content industries.

      Why should they adapt, if they can shape the market conditions to fit their needs?

  • Then I would support it in the USA.

    If, like me, you don't want any illegal songs, software, books, or movies; then why do you really need P2P software?

    The problem that I have with the MAFIAA goons is that they tend to persecute the guilty and innocent alike. For example, there is no requirement in microsoft's eula that you keep original receipts for software; but the bsa will fine you $90K if you don't have them handy. How is that fair, or even legal? Sure you can fight it in court, but that will cost you $

  • So can the web server its placed on. So can the phone lines.. so can your fingers and brain.

    lets just outlaw people and be done with it.

  • To maintain an appearance of consistency, the same Brazilian court has also banned several other technologies that might be used to assist in copyright infringement. The banned technologies include DVD burners, blank CDs, dual cassette decks, cameras of all sorts, pens, pencils, paper, and Microsoft Windows.
  • In a related story, the same judge today ruled that automobile manufacturers must install cameras and microphones in all automobiles sold in Brazil and monitor drivers and passengers for illegal behaviour such as ingestion of controlled substances and bank robbery. Several major auto manufacturers have already announced plans to stop sales of new autos in the country, and a spokesman for a used auto trade organization called the ruling "great news for the fight against crime in Brazil".

  • because it can be used to assist copyright infringement. "He went on to suggest that any website offering the software alongside advertising (i.e, trying to profit from offering it) would be committing a crime, punishable by between two and four years in jail."

    well you can use any webbrowser to download copyrighted stuff from filehosters, so why isn't steve ballmer in jail for 4 years? they distribute IE on their website and even sell it (together with some other stuff) on discs!

    furthermore you CAN use

To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar

Working...