Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case 285

Posted by simoniker from the peer-versus-peer dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case More

Court to Hear Landmark P2P Case

Comments Filter:

  • May as well hold gun makers liable, too. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dinglenuts ( 691550 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:50PM (#8160089)
    Let's round up not just P2P companies, but the gun makers as well, not to mention knife makers (stabbing), shoe makers (for jaywalking), God (for making rocks that other people used to beat heads in), and pretty much everyone who ever created a product that was ever used in a crime, ever. Idiots.

    • Don't laugh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:27PM (#8160445)
      there's plenty of people who want to make gun makers liable. It's been tried before and failed. When you consider your opponent morrally wrong just about any avenue's open to attack.

      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.
      • BTW, where are the software companies in all this? Shouldn't groups like Real, Apple, and even ATI [...] be worried too?

        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

    • Head over to the Artists Against the RIAA site and get music that is legal to share. Then flood the p2p with it. Or support the EFF and other organizations that fight the bull going on here. Prove with the one thing it takes, money, that there are legal uses.

      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

  • The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:51PM (#8160100)
    "The judges will likely take several months to issue an opinion on the matter."
    • After all... They've got to give the RIAA enough time to shower them with gifts. First up ... commemorative sun-shaped nipple rings for everyone!

    • "First up ... commemorative sun-shaped nipple rings for everyone!"

      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....

      :-)

      • Thank goodness for replays on Tivo....

        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)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:35PM (#8160533) Journal
        What I don't get is why this upsets people so much? They don't get this upset when people blow their own heads off on TV and it shows the body, the pool of blood and the hole in the head...

        Isn't that WORSE than a breast?

        • Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KirkH ( 148427 )
          The difference is that parent's shouldn't have to worry about not letting their little kids watch the Superbowl for fear of them being exposed to crass and crude behavior. No one was notified that the Superbowl would be sporting a rating of 'R' this year (a movie showing a bare breast would be rated 'R', for better or for worse.)

          Meanwhile, parents can make sure that their kids will not be allowed to watch whatever violent show you're reffering to.
          • for fear of them being exposed to crass and crude behavior

            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?
            • The reason people are upset is they find something "crass and crude" about a man ripping a woman's clothes off without her consent (I think it was probably staged, so she did really "consent", but still...).
        • "Isn't that WORSE than a breast?"

          In most cases, premarital sex is far more likely than cold blooded murder.

    • Re:The long deliberation makes sense ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by telstar ( 236404 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:27PM (#8160443)
      Speaking of the RIAA, has anyone noticed that digital music trade seems to be all that company is about anymore? Check out their website. Virtually every link on the homepage is all about music piracy. The only artist listed on their homepage, Elvis Presley, is long since dead.

      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.

  • Why not... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rocket97 ( 565016 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:52PM (#8160112)
    may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior


    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)

      by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:02PM (#8160204)
      Last time i checked, p2p apps don't contain chemicals to make you want more p2p.

      Unless you count porn.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:06PM (#8160249)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Why not... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 )
      I can somewhat see your point about tobacco companies, but I don't think the comparisson is accurate. Tobacco companies produce a product that is known to be hazardous to your health and they marketed the product to be used in a method that is hazardous. P2P vendors at least have an argument that their products are use neutral. The products can be used for good or bad, depending on the end user (sort of like the CD/DVD burners...I can use to save off my data or I can use it to copy the latest CD from a f
    • "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."

      Betcha can't go a month without cola and coffee.

  • OT: Why so long? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BACPro ( 206388 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:53PM (#8160115)
    So this is a question for all those IAAL types out there.

    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)

      by alen ( 225700 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:02PM (#8160205)
      They have other cases to decide. They also need to research the law on this before issuing a decision. Each side will present a brief with many quotes of prior case law. The judges will need to research the briefs before issuing a decision. The oral arguments are just a summation of the briefs that are submitted. Many parties will also submit friend of the court briefs.

    • Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Seby123456 ( 678791 )
      The 60 minutes would probably be just the oral submission. There would be bucketloads of documents to back up their oral submission, as well as purely documentary evidence itself. Its this paperwork that really chews up the time getting through.

    • Re:OT: Why so long? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Alien54 ( 180860 )
      If the judges take 60 minutes to hear arguments from plaintiff and defendant, why do they take months to render a verdict?

      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.

    • He's probably waiting to give a verdict so he can complete his collection at home.

      -

  • I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:54PM (#8160128)
    How can providers be at fault? One can use any communications medium for piracy: The mail system, telephone companies, FTP, the web, carrier pidgeon - the list is virtually endless. Is the postal system at fault for transporting CDs with pirated software?
    • You have to look at its intention. Let me start by saying that I don't want to see a company held liable for the misuse of their product any more than the next man, but to the IP Holders, they are viewing the actions of Morpheus and friends as an attempt to profit from helping share ripped music.
      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)

    by smd4985 ( 203677 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:54PM (#8160130) Homepage
    the reasoning in the lower-court case is so solid (well reasoned, backed by precedent) that i'd be surprised if the opinion is reversed. either way, i'm sure the RIAA will attempt to take the case all the way to the supreme court.

  • It's the 9th Circuit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mind21_98 ( 18647 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:54PM (#8160131) Homepage Journal
    We probably shouldn't cheer any victory in the appeals court. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned court ever, and the Supreme Court will probably overturn the decision made here. Of course, they might overturn it in the P2P services' favor if the 9th Circuit rules against them. Either way, we should be prepared.
    • >Either way, we should be prepared.

      So we should start downloading all the mp3 and pr0n our harddrive can hold?

    • How is that figured? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      How did you come to that conclusion? Are you using the total number of cases overturned or are you using the % of cases overturned?

      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)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:34PM (#8160517)
        If you look at a reasonable spread, like 10 years, or even just the time the current set of judges on the 9th district have all sat together, or the time since GWB took office, the 9th is far from first place on % overturned, and not even in 1st place on total numbers.
        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The ninth circuit is not magically overturned because it is the ninth circuit. It's overturned because it's liberal and the supreme court is not. It is highly unlikely the supreme court would overturn a 9th circuit ruling in the RIAA's favor.

  • Winning the war but losing the battle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:54PM (#8160135)
    The RIAA and other like-minded bodies need to find a way to get their message out (music is not free) without alienating their customers.

    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

    • Not actual CDs, but itunes and some other services do let you by CDs digitally for $10. Which is pretty nice, even if it is only a digital copy. After the cost of burning your CD would be something like $11-12, which is a good knock off of the price.

      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)

    by mmca ( 180858 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:55PM (#8160138) Homepage
    As quoted in the article:

    In the landmark Sony Betamax case in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not liable for contributory copyright infringement for selling VCRs that allowed consumers to tape content from their televisions.


    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)

      by AndreyF ( 701606 )
      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.

      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
      • "It related to the creation of p2p networks (gnutella, freenet, etc.), NOT the question at hand: the subpoena power of the RIAA under the DMCA, which is what this case is about."

        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)

      by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 )
      "What was presented that makes this case different?"

      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)

    by Mork29 ( 682855 ) <keith@yelnick.us@army@mil> on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:55PM (#8160141) Journal
    "The services are profiting to the tune of millions of dollars from music that is written by songwriters who are not getting a dime from the use of their music on these services," said Carey Ramos, a lawyer representing songwriters and music publishers

    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)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:03PM (#8160213)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Bad Statement (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:22PM (#8160396) Journal
        As much as I dislike the RIAA and how they treat artists, I have to disagree with your statement about them doing nothing.

        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)

        by rm007 ( 616365 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:23PM (#8160400) Journal
        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

        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.
      • You could add that they filter a lot of shlock before the consumer has to wade through it, but even that's a mixed blessing, as they often filter based on how photogenic the performer is rather than on musical grounds.
      • As much as I dislike the RIAA and how they treat artists, I have to disagree with your statement about them doing nothing.

        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...

        The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. rec

      • First, the RIAA does none of that. The individual labels make a floating term loan to the artists, then charge the artists to use their facilities (recovering the loan as an artist expense) to record and distribute. Once sales begin, the label owns the music and collects the royalties, ostensibly in the name of the artist. After the label removes costs, tithes, dues, taxes, expenses, and of course the original loan payment, the artist gets the crumb that remains.

        Through all of this, the RIAA does nothing f

  • The possible outcomes of this decision: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamonterrell ( 517500 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:57PM (#8160158)
    1.) The previous ruling can be upheld and P2P Technology will continue to cause innovation in the technological field.

    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)

    by tsunamifirestorm ( 729508 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @01:59PM (#8160172) Homepage
    "The Betamax was a product that allowed consumers to make copies. The defendants operate services which facilitate both unauthorized distribution as well as copying, and that continuing network is fundamentally different"
    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.
    • The courts also tended to use the word "Substantial" a lot. The betamax ruling mentioned "Substantial non-infringing uses", i.e. time shifting. Maybe if 20% of the traffic on the P2P services was non-infringing, that would count as substantial, but 0.02% doesn't?

  • I don't get this argument.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:00PM (#8160184) Journal

    "It's important to protect the Betamax doctrine, so the price of innovation doesn't become a huge lawsuit from the entertainment industry," he said.

    In the landmark Sony Betamax case in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not liable for contributory copyright infringement for selling VCRs that allowed consumers to tape content from their televisions.

    Ramos said the two cases can't be compared.

    "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."


    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.

    • 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.

      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)

    by MacDork ( 560499 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:02PM (#8160208) Journal

    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)

      by Xentor ( 600436 )
      This is a great idea (Though I'm sure people will find countless flaws that I didn't notice)...

      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.
      • The recording studio may change over time though as technology becomes cheaper. While high end recording studios will always exist, technology improvements are bringing the capabilities to the home users desktop. I can see where the artist of the future will have a lot more control over their media (from concepts to final release).

        See: Peter Gabriel and Brian Enu launch MUDDA [billboard.com]

  • Setting a judicial precedent... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:03PM (#8160210)
    • Used phone to plan crime --> phone companies and phone makers held responsible.
    • Threatened bank w/ note about fake bomb --> makers of pencil, paper, and luggage held responsible.
    • Used car in getaway --> automaker, oil company held responsible.
    • Used gun in shootout w/ police --> gun and ammo maker held responsible. [not far from there now]
    Of course, if those businesses were "criminal", then the businesses that sell them tools and supplies are also criminal. [apply recursively]

    • Do you not see the difference between something that is used primarily in an illegal way and something that is used primarily to make marks on paper (pencil)? If I was to release a product like ?infanticide in a can? should I not be held responsible? The question before the court is if the legitimate use of P2P networks outweighs its illegal use. And for what its wroth, I do think that gun manufactures that make cheap semi automatic guns advertised as having a ?fingerprint proof finish? should be locked up.
  • 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

    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...

  • Guns don't kill people.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:05PM (#8160233) Journal
    It's an online rehash of the same old tired argument, only now it has an online twist. The **IA organizations are probably banking on the court to not be able to tell that this is the case.

    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....
    • 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.

      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

      • Well for starters, I don't use P2P at all for a few reasons:
        1. Distributing copyrighted songs or software without the owners' consent is illegal. I know the chances of getting caught are small, but I don't really need it that bad to push my luck. Besides, my CD collection is sufficiently big enough for my liking, and if I do want something new, I have the means to get them legally, either by buying the overpriced CD's or through iTunes. I'm fully aware that the **IA organizations are actively abusing copy
      • Argueably, I use p2p ilegally. But laws do not equal rightness, or goodness. I think that p2p is one of those things that come along, and tell us that our standards are now wrong, and we must spend some time in deep thought about the issues it brings up. While not recompensating the artists is wrong, and there is no way to see it otherwise, it also provides a valueable tool for record companies, what do people really want, when given a choice.

        Yes, p2p gives people a choice, beyond the "free or paid" one
    • You're right, it is an online rehash of the "guns don't kill people" argument.

      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)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:38PM (#8160580)
      If the gun manufacturers marketed their products based on the fact that the majority of its users would use them illegally, then I would agree with you. Napster, Kazaa and the rest ARE marketing their products this way, and only after the event saying "but your honor, my application has legal uses also, its just very very rare they are used for those purposes!" Note the 'premium' service Kazaa marketed which gave you access to top quality rips, which the copyright holders werent being recompensed for at all.

  • what if p2p became illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by victorvodka ( 597971 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:05PM (#8160236) Homepage
    not that i hope this happens, but i'd be interested to see what exactly could be done about P2P networks if they were ruled to be illegal. it would set a precedent for closing down the highway system - think of how it facilitates the distribution of pirate materials. never underestimate the bandwidth of a 1975 Dodge Dart full of DVDs.

    • 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)

    by CelticWhisper ( 601755 ) <celticwhisperNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:08PM (#8160267)
    In their appeal, movie-studio and recording-industry plaintiffs argued that if the court does not reverse Wilson's ruling, "it will gravely threaten any possibility for meaningful copyright protection in the digital era."

    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)

    by brucmack ( 572780 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:08PM (#8160277)
    I'm not sure how much the future of P2P hinges on a US court decision... there are people in other countries using P2P too you know.

    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)

    by utoddl ( 263055 ) <Todd_Lewis@unc.edu> on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:17PM (#8160361) Homepage
    "...may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior."

    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)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@@@ivoss...com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:28PM (#8160454) Homepage Journal
    How would a lawsuit against a few companies decide the future of P2P services? By its very nature, P2P is not dependent on a company to exist. Shaman networks, Grokster, and limewire could go out of business tomorrow and the networks would still be up.

  • Appeals Court (Score:3, Interesting)

    by simrook ( 548769 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:36PM (#8160544)
    There is going to be very little evidence to submit, contrary to some of the popular posts above. An appeals court does not validate the evidence or the warrents gained from claims on the evidence, the only thing they do is validate the constitutionality of the case and the constitutionality of the evidence.

    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)

    by forged ( 206127 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @02:55PM (#8160917) Homepage Journal
    The timing of this article couldn't be more unfortunate as I just installed Skype [skype.com]... Well, I'm grabbin' it and keepin' my copy safe just in case :) Who knows, free* P2P telephony might be the next app on the radar ?!

    *free as in Beer

  • What it basicly boils down to... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:17PM (#8161268) Homepage
    ...is that if you create a medium for freely distributing information, will then most of it be copyrighted and without permission? The evidence so far suggests yes. Hell I can tell you that most floppys or CD-ROMs I ever saw were used for exactly the same, it's nothing that was "invented" by the Internet.

    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)

    by LuxFX ( 220822 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:19PM (#8161295) Homepage Journal
    ...and may affect whether technology companies can be held liable for their customers' behavior

    This upsets me every time I think about it! Here are some parallels we're not likely to hear about:
    • gun companies held responsible for crimes committed by their customers
    • governments / political figures held responsible for crimes committed by their citizens
    • schools held responsible for their students' ignorance
    • universities held responsible for their graduates' lack of employability
    • oil companies held responsible for the damage they do to the environment


    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.
    • gun companies held responsible for crimes committed by their customers

      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
  • Hey, I ran my KaZaa on Microsoft Windows. Is Microsoft now responsible since they didn't include code in Windows (other than a lot of BSOD's) to prevent me?

  • Can't compare to Betamax? Oh really... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:44PM (#8161648)
    In the landmark Sony Betamax case in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not liable for contributory copyright infringement for selling VCRs that allowed consumers to tape content from their televisions.

    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.

  • Is a Government responsible for the actions of every single person within its countries borders?

    No.

    So why should P2P companies be liable for the actions of every single one of their users on their networks?

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close