Is The Net At Fault For Illegal Filesharing? 434
hbean writes: "Laywers for the file sharing programs Morpheus and Grokster are saying that if their client's programs are illegal for sharing copyrighted content, then so are the networks of ISPs that allow users to connect to each other -- check it out here. I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
related (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:related (Score:2)
Re:related (Score:3, Funny)
Re:related (Score:2)
Re:related (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever headbutt anyone? Skulls are now illegal! (Score:2)
I know this is rhetorical, and I am underscoring the point you wish to make:
Do you own a car? A boat? An airplane? A kitchen knife?
All of these have been used as weapons
Banning weapons means banning everything, up to and including manditory amputation of everyone's arms and legs and, if headbutting is included, decapitating everyone in the world altogether. Banning tools, or even single purpose weapons, is pointless as a means of reigning in violence. Just as it is pointless and counterproductive to start banning technology as a means of reigning in copyright violation.
Re:Ever headbutt anyone? Skulls are now illegal! (Score:3, Insightful)
Banning contact weapons is silly. Just about anything can be made into a contact weapon, starting with the pencil I'm not writing this with, to the laptop I am writing this with, to the car I drove this morning.
But contact weapons usually include an element of personal danger on the user. If you get close enough to hit me with a laptop, I can hit you back.
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.) Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too, it makes unarmed law-abiding citizens less safe. Ranged weapons are equalizers only in cases where all parties have them. This is part of why shall-issue concealed-carry laws are so nice.
But it isn't really correct, personally, to group contact weapons and ranged weapons together, from a practical standpoint. From a U.S. Constitutional standpoint, sure.
But "as a means of reigning in violence" contact weapons and ranged weapons are different matters.
Re:required (Score:2, Interesting)
Guns are also pretty much required once you get into the American or Australian outback. Some people live in areas with large and occasionally vicious animals (e.g., grizzlies), and police hours away at the best of times.
As for the impact of guns on violence - guns don't help big guys like me kill people. I can still defend myself with my fists, or with my hunting knife, or with a knife from my kitchen.
But guns allow my 70 yo mother to have a chance against an attacker. The "equalizer" was called that for a reason.
Yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh..
This made slashdot?
Re:Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not The Air, but the Space (Score:2)
With your analogy, air might equal the spam that the files have to fight their way through to get to the end user's hard drive.
Re:Yes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
Not sure I agree with it, but I wanted to complete the swordbay's thought.
-Pete
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
I was with you right up to this part. The drink the drunk drank was designed to intoxicate and therefore impair the drinker if used as directed. The beverage company almost assuredly relies on people drinking to excess and knows that, for some, alcohol is just as addicting as nicotine. What's worse is that drunk driving can have a more immediate effect on others than second-hand smoke.
Re:Yes... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that this is more of a "publicity stunt" to bring up this issue. If the "highway" isn't at fault, and the manufacturer isn't at fault, maybe its the user.
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
If Morpheus and friends have been mostly used for facilitating infringement, a similar argument would suggest nailing both them -- for facilitating being their primary use -- and the users -- for doing the actual infringing. This argument does NOT extend to ISPs, since most ISPs do not have as their prevailing use infringement, nor do they advertise as such.
Re:Using your analogy... (Score:2)
Go after the users? nah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful - not much money to be had there...
Re:Go after the users? nah... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly for the media companies, they don't want to piss off regular, average users too much. OK, this may seem like a stupid comment based on their efforts to use copy protection to restrict anything and everything, including our ability to hum songs in the shower, but think about this for a second. If they use technological restrictions, then people probably will blame the tecnology, but that blame may not filter directly back to media companies. If Jonh Q. Public buys a new PC that won't let him copy his CDs, then he may be pissed, but he may not lay all the blame at the doorstep of the media companies. And if they shut down the file sharing systems, the smae thing happens. Buf if regular people get sued, not only does that take more effort to do, but it will hit home to many people. The reaction would probably go along the lines of, "I give these #$%$@!^ record companies all my hard-earned cash, and those ^&#$*&@$ are going after _me_ for swapping a few songs here and there?! I'll never give them another red cent!" People are already getting pissed off, but I suspect that the effect would be magnified if they were suing the users.
Re:Go after the users? nah... (Score:2)
You're right, some will figure out ways around it. However, I think that many won't. There are many people out there who don't have a clue as to what goes on inside that little metal box. I got a call from a friend a couple of weeks ago who wanted to move the hard drive from his old PC to his new one in order to transfer the files over, and when he was calling me, he was trying to figure out how to remove the CPU from the motherboard. When I asked him what he wanted to do that for, he said, "That's the hard drive, isn't it?"
I do think some people will learn how to bypass copy controls, but many will be clueless. To many of them, the computer might as well work using magic because that's about the extent of their understanding of it.
Great court case (Score:4, Funny)
"MPAA & RIAA vs. the Internet"
"Is the defendent ready?"
"011011001010111110010100110100...."
Re:Great court case (Score:4, Funny)
Judge: How do you plead?
Jeeves: WebMD - Girl's Parents Plead for Gene Therapy to Resume
Judge: What does that have to do with music piracy?
Jeeves: Kid Rock Starves To Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed
More Jeeves... (Score:2)
So sue everybody... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really. It's a big world out there, and occasionally people have to own up to their own actions.
In Other News... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News... (Score:2, Funny)
By claiming He was the sole creator of the universe, God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws [theonion.com].
This is equivalent to saying... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad part is, the US legal system seems to agree.
Re:This is equivalent to saying... (Score:2)
E.g., there's one rifle model where there have been multiple reports of one model of gun discharging even though the safety was on. IIRC some people said that they didn't even have their finger near the trigger. This is why gun safety rules stress that you should never aim it at anything you don't intend to shoot - safeties fail, unloaded guns aren't, etc. But for whatever reason several people were killed or injured by this model of gun.
When the initial complaints arrived, the manufacturer claimed that the person was obviously mistaken. But people started suing, and the number of suits indicate that there's a real problem.
This is nothing but a "product safety" suit - if the safety is on, the gun should not fire. (On my Beretta, the safety physically rotates the firing pin by about 45 degrees.) But the media and some activists have had a field day with the suits. "What does 'product safety' mean with a tool designed to kill people?" (Same as everywhere else - it injures people when it works when it's not supposed to or fails to work when it should.) "Gun manufacturer sued because of deaths" (Disregarding the circumstances of these deaths.)
Re:This is equivalent to saying... (Score:2)
-
The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth. To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient only for a herd of cattle. - Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Re:This is equivalent to saying... (Score:2, Funny)
remind me never to buy a gun in that universe. pull the trigger the entire gun turns blue and all the bullets go of at once in the wrong directions.
Microsoft rewrites it's BSoD code
Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the drug war! If you arrested everyone in the US who had committed a drug crime (including smalltime possession and use, the drug equiv of sharing a few Metallica files), you'd arrest an amount of people that equals the population of Texas, Arkensaw and Colorado. (Sorry if I misspelled any of those
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up. To say nothing of 'casual' copyright infringement (I used a
What
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
Yeah, that philosophy has worked SO well for the drug war!
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
Just letting you know... (Score:4, Informative)
This is not actually illegal. Copyright law only applies to publication or distribution, and showing something to a family member is not considered either of these. You can remix any song with any other song you'd like or make a poster from your favorite movie in the privacy of your own home. It's when you make it public even in the smallest way that you get in trouble.
But they'd like it to be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a link (Score:3, Informative)
A skeptical Hatch then turned to the Recording Industry Association of America president, Hilary Rosen, a surprise addition to the roster of witnesses. Wedging herself into a space next to MP3.com head Michael Robertson, whom the RIAA recently helped to sue, Rosen found herself subjected to the kind of puzzled questions about fair use -- a notorious legal morass -- that millions of music owners have been asking themselves for the last few months.
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and
hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
''Is it fair use to give the copy to my wife for her car?'' Hatch continued. ''Is it fair use for me to rip a CD? Is it fair use if (a computer network) decides for efficiency reasons that one copy is sufficient to serve for storage, instead
of keeping 200 separate copies, is that fair use?''
''None of these is fair use,'' Rosen eventually replied. She argued that musicians' willingness to ''tolerate'' people making copies was an instance of ''no good deed goes unpunished.''
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah right (Score:2, Funny)
Huh? This is Arkansas! The correct number is either 22 or 24, for lucky induhviduals who have six digits per appendage, or waaaaay less than 20 for those who've said "watch this!" while chopping firewood or doing body work on the '73 Ford in the driveway.
In any case, it sure as hell ain't 20, that's fer shure!
Re:That's an interesting point (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. Dig this ad [lp.org] run by the Libertarian Party parodying the ridiculous recent ads equating drug use with terrorism. It ran full page in the Washington Post & USA Today (!) today. Right to the point.
morpheus is down... (Score:5, Interesting)
Morpheus is down at the moment. When you try to connect, an error box pops up saying. "Your version of Morpheus is too old to connect to the network. Please download a new version at www.musiccity.com."
This is apparently a programming glitch caused overnight by developers -- there's no new version. It is interesting, however, because one of MusicCity's main defenses against being shut down was that they can't turn off the clients because they're fully distributed and aren't under central control.
This proves otherwise. I predict a court order will follow shortly and Morpheus will be gone.
I noticed that yesterday, but then.... (Score:2)
I downloaded Kazaa, opted out of all the spyware and was back to downloading.
So untill they prove that they can shut down the entire fasttrak network disabling one client at a time will get kind of tiresome.
Re:morpheus is down... (Score:5, Informative)
Heise [heise.de] claims Fastrack looked Morpheus out on purpose. They have an article [heise.de]about it. babelfish [altavista.com] can't be directly linked to translate it from german, they seem to check the reffer now.
Your error box really said... (Score:2)
Dangerous to make this argument (Score:5, Insightful)
if their client's programs are illegal for sharing copyrighted content, then so are the networks of ISPs that allow users to connect to each other
I think this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument, where one side reduces the other side's argument to something patently ridiculous, to prove that it's wrong. With the general level of tech clue most judges seem to have nowadays (example: Marilyn Patel), people had better watch out, or the courts might actually end up outlawing (any useful form of) the Internet!
Just my $0.01
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Re:Dangerous to make this argument (Score:5, Informative)
Judge Patel is in fact one of the sharpest judges around on tech matters. If you don't believe it, go back and read her opinion in Bernstein.
The only fair criticism I can see against Patel is that her recent orders in Napster were too slow in coming. In the long run, that doesn't matter at all, and it hardly surprises anybody that our judicial system moves slowly sometimes.
Re:Dangerous to make this argument (Score:2)
You're right, she was a bad example. I was just too lazy to google for someone else, and she was the first name that came to mind (from her talking about "napster storing music on their servers" back in the day), sorry.
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Re:Dangerous to make this argument (Score:2, Insightful)
But even though that precedent was set, if I remember the article correctly, in the Betamax case; there's no reason that a court couldn't decide that the "prevailing" standard is better. There's legal precedent for this all over the place: drug paraphernalia, lock picking tools, radar detectors, etc. Various laws and regulations control these devices which all have legitimate uses. The law can restrict the manufacture, or sale, or possession, or use, or combinations thereof.
The solution to this problem is to create a peer-to-peer file xferring tool that has so much legitimate functionality and use that this becomes a moot point. For example, a new protocol that combines what we now use FTP for with what people look for in file sharing networks and apps. Hell, Slashdot readers (and anyone else wanting to fight the RIAA) that maintain FTP sites could mirror their ftp sites on Morpheus. Presto! Legitimate use that is not hypothetical but indisputable and widespread.
Uh, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they did (remember with Napster?) and all the people here who were insisting that the people involved in illegal sharing should be blamed started shrieking that the Gestapo was coming after innocent Napster users. Same thing when ISPs started booting abusers.
Anyway, IANAL, blah blah blah, but I still grasp the difference between an ISP or OS maker and a company whose core product is designed and marketed for facilitating copyright violation and whose customers are using it 99.9% for illegal sharing. I don't see a judge buying that line of reasoning.
CORRECT! (Score:3, Insightful)
and so is microsoft for selling me the OS that made it possible
and gateway for my keyboard
digital for my monitor
that criminal who wrote the rfc for tcp/ip
intel for the CPU
the state of california for allowing some miscreant to supply me power to run my computer
microsoft again for the mouse
my boss for not watching me closely enough at work
and my wife is responsible because she helped me get up today on time for work, so I am now awake and can click on the file to share
whatever
These are the *Good* Guys (Score:3, Informative)
What they are saying is, "Blaming our clients for this is just as ridiculous as blamiong all these other parties would be."
Because there is substantial, non-infringing use of P2P file sharing, it is just as silly to sue the writer of the software as it would be to sue ISP's.
If you read the article, the EFF is involved in helping architect that defense. Everyone who reads Slashdot should know about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and what their role as "our lobbyist" is, just like everyone should read the article before posting a comment.
hey nice sensationalizing in the post. (Score:5, Informative)
"Lawyers for makers of the file-sharing applications Morpheus and Grokster say that, if their clients can be held responsible for illegal copies of music and motion pictures, then so too should companies such as Microsoft and AOL Time Warner, whose software and Internet connectivity are essential to building networks of file traders."
Notice any differences?
At any rate, this isn't an attempt to shut down the internet. It's a rhetorical question.. forcing people to ask questions about what is TRULY responsible for piracy. It's the age old gun cliche.. the gun isn't evil, it's the person holding it.
Bonus points to anyone who read the article, which by the pile of comments already posted, are few and far between.
Re:hey nice sensationalizing in the post. (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if people made a UI for opening and sharing SMB shares on windows machines, and then using those shares for sharing... It's just using the software microsoft provided, and telling others about it.
Re:hey nice sensationalizing in the post. (Score:2)
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
The telephone companies might have some hope of making that argument, possibly preserving DSL for awhile longer as a non-MPAA compliant way to access the Internet.
ISPs to blame? (Score:2)
Well, $*it Sherlock, then you'll have to blame mother nature for creating the oceans, a medium upon which pirates did their thing.
Sure, all the tools are there, and the medium is there, but ultimately, it's the person who uses them that make up the term "piracy".
That, and software being priced ridicuously high.
-Cyc
Does this mean... (Score:3, Funny)
It only makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
If people can sue gun makers for people being killed with their products...
Shouldn't I be able to sue Microsoft for making an Operating System that allows me to pirate software?
Shouldn't I be able to sue AOL for allowing me to access the Internet?
Yet another example of people unable to make the leap from meat-space to cyberspace.
Reduction (Score:2)
Someone seems to misunderstand the point of a reductio at absurdum [bartleby.com] demonstration. That's exactly the point the lawyers are making silly!
Attack the MPAA and RIAA.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrap the MPAA and the RIAA up in this start distributing a client (allowning only downloads of your own music or non copyrighted material) and lie in wait, when the MPAA or RIAA sets out to bust your chops you got em, VERY got em.
The other is ad and canvassing campaigns, get local printers to volunteer services for print (for yes advertising) and start distributing leaflets and taking signatures.
If anyone has any CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on direct concepts of being targeted by the MPAA send them to my email address. There is a limit to their power, companies are easy to go after, but if they even in one case blatantly violate the civil rights of one citizen its much easier to demonize them as well as litigate against them.
It's like saying... (Score:2)
Better yet, it's like saying that FedEx, UPS, PayPal, eBay, and the USPS are just as responsible for me getting stiffed as the person actually stiffing me.
FTP warez servers (Score:2, Insightful)
That's their whole point (Score:2)
Argument or counterargument? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't sound like an argument, it's a counterargument, they're trying to disprove the argument of the media companies by reduction to the absurd (excuse the mistranslated latin).
They're saying that if you're going to blame them, you might as well follow the logical fallacy to the extreme and blame the world that allows this to happen, including the media companies that are suing since they own ISPs. The plaintiffs don't get to choose up to which point their blame-the-tools logic applies.
Since that doesn't make sense, you have to face the facts that they are not responsible for the actions of individual users.
They're not perpetuating the insanity. They're demonstrating why it is insane.
Non-Infringing Use (Score:2)
I also pay a certain amount per year for cable modem service. If I wasn't afraid of the privacy implications of running a file-trading service such as Morpheus, Kazaa, etc... I could host those files on my own cable modem connection rather than pay through the ass for domain and hosting.
will they go after the actual violators? (Score:3, Insightful)
i think the problem with going after individual people who are sharing files is a twofold:
on one hand there are just plain too many of them and going after a few wont make a big difference, unless they turn it into a huge publicity issue and try to ruin said scapegoat's life
which brings us to the second issue... you end up turning said person into a martyr and get alot of bad publicity, from people who might otherwise be more sympathetic for your cause
either way going after small individuals is more trouble than it's worth.. they are the lesser evil
Imagine..... (Score:2, Funny)
Errr.... uh.... nevermind.
Sorry.
the REAL question (Score:2)
YMJV
They already blame it on the people (Score:2)
Also, the argument has the same validity as Gun Control lobbiests have (and I do agree with Gun Control). The Tool makes it really easy to commit a crime, and seems to have few other legitimate uses.
I do not beleive that File Sharing should be considered a crime. I also want to be able to make a living at my kick ass job making video games, so I am not against copyright either. The problem is how to give the copyright holders a fair market value without ignoring the current state of technology. The problem is non trivial, and I really do not have much in the way of valid answers for it.
END COMMUNICATION
"Legal disaster strikes hardware manufacturers!" (Score:2)
When Do I own a Packet? (Score:3, Interesting)
When do I own a packet?
After I request it?
When the media it travels down is owned by me?
When it hits my computer and the TCP/IP stack does something with it?
When I sign my service agreement?
I guess RIAA thinks they always own the packet.
For about the last year I've been sharing my network with my neighbors, we all own our houses, and have given each other "right of way" to run cat5 stapled to the fence into each others houses. What started out as a simple 1 wire connection has grown to over 24 pairs of copper (i.e. 6 lines)
Each neighbor prepays 6 months in advanced, 10 dollars a month. With this money i've managed to get the bandwidth up to 1.5down and 512up. Their kids can download on napster all day long and it still wont lag my gaming connection. Not only do I share an internet connection with them, but my fileserver as well. We have a central repository for music, a phpnuke based site for updates on the network status.
Our equipment is pretty nice too, everyone has intel pro100 management cards. Our main nat server used to be a linkcyst router, but it has evolved into a k62-300 running bbiagent. (nifty little firewall on disk, bbiagent.net)
So the question of when do I own the packet comes up again.
We don't have a classC subnet, we're all using nat on the 192.168.x.x range. I thought that range was set aside as a non routable "private" network. Private as in mine, err I should say our co-op. It doesn't belong nor resemble our providers network in any way shape or form. We maintain it, upgrade it, support it, ect.
Take for example, the DSL I use now. It runs on POTS telephone service, which has not seen any signifigant change since Alexander Bell said "hello" 100 years ago. Basically whenever you make a phone call, the line between you and the person on the other end is a complete circuit. The best analogy I can make is this would be like taking a trip from LA to Chicago, with all the freeways empty except for your car during the duration of your trip. It's a complete waste of resources.
This is really turning into a long rant.
I just don't see RIAAs justification for eradicating Napster from my network.. If they want to control what kind of network I have at home, they can run the cable, and buy my hardware. Hunting down people that just want to share an internet connection is bullshit (pardon my french) and is just another way of deflecting from the REAL problem which is people are starting to wake up to the fact that what they have percieved for years as good music from the record industry is not the truth. I think it's about time people stopped accepting what the RIAA try and shleff off as good music and start demanding that they stop with the britney spears, backstreet boys and all the other crap they try and tell us is music, instead of taking it out on the customers that underwrite their business.
No little Johnny, *don't* share your toys... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
In related news, teaching little children to share was made illegal last week, after prolonged legal pressure from the RIAA.
Seriously, the reason orgs like the RIAA are freaking out about file sharing is *not* individual people sharing. It's the aggregate effect. Multiple people sharing online is a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. I can share MP3's with 5 of my friends over the Internet, but it won't be useful, since I can probably just go to their house and listen to them anyway.
The RIAA is used to bludgeoning people with laws, but there are no laws (AFAIK) dealing with behavior of random large aggregates of people (yes, there are laws dealing with corporations, etc., but corps don't have the diffused nature of the groups of people involved in Internet file sharing), so they're left tearing their hair out wondering what to do. In the past, the RIAA could clearly identify who they were going after, from the days of the sheet music "pirates" to song-writing plagiarists. Hence their current "blame the messenger" mentality, since at least they're able to *identify* who the messengers are without spying on people.
I disagree with the whole premise that individuals sharing files is wrong, I mean aren't we taught to share from the time we're little? (at least in the US). I think we're dealing with something entirely new with these large-scale anonymous file sharing applications. Most people on /. will say "duh," but really, look at the outside world. (Judges, etc.) Can you really say this point has made it into their heads yet?
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]
Here's who they should go after: (Score:2)
That's right, the big guy upstairs has a hand in everything, and therefore should be held responsible. Free will, good/evil, intelligence, computers - they all came from God one way or another, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? And if churches are "Houses of God," doesn't that make them His assets, which could be confiscated to cover damages? It was God's will that people should share files, and therefore He is the guilty party - lock Him up and take away all His stuff.
Or maybe instead of bullying everyone who did anything that allowed someone to do something they didn't like, they could just go after the people who committed these "crimes." Right, that would force them to address the issue... Sorry for being realistic, I'll go hit myself over the head with a baseball bat until this makes sense...
what about search engines (Score:2, Insightful)
Allow you to do a search over various hosts until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What does google and yahoo do?
Allow you to do a search ( from their listing... hmmmm like napster? ) until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What's the difference?
Re:what about search engines (Score:2, Interesting)
What percentage of Morpheus searches result in copyright infringement? Has Morpheus ever been warned... and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Morpheus/FastTrack?
The answers are quite different. So, then, is the legal treatment that they deserve.
Lawyers: "It's the other guys fault" (Score:2)
Guns don't kill people...
Bullets don't kill people...
Gunpower doesn't kill people...
A combination of Chemistry and Physics kills people!
The moral of the story is that there will always be a lawyer to argue that you are not at fault for something.
Why blame the lawyers? (Score:2)
First, because they want to shift the blame from the p2p client software makers.
Second, so as to place the blame on an unprosecutable entity. While individuals can be prosecuted one by one, it's not financially viable or realistic - there'd be an unheard number of cases. However, if companies were to be brought to court, there would be a lot of pushing and shoving, and a lot of other such nonsense. It would be a much more evenly matched conflict, as opposed to the corporate lord picking on the civilian cerfs. If this were the case, it's unlikely the MPAA would take action. (I don't imagine that Time Warner will be making moves against AOL at any point soon, do you?)
All of this copyright garbage is a bunch of nonsense - they make enough money on each CD or DVD sold to pay for the production of 4+ such items, possibly including the price of production. It is simply a grab for more money (read: power and control). I wonder what it would take to form a nonprofit organization to combat such claims as the MPAA,RIAA, etc. in a more broad front, where people can donate money to support their rights of freedom? If people, Americans, can't even fight oppression of freedom with their money, where will you support it?
It would be interesting to see a film or music studio open up that was supportive of artist rights, and the right of people to do freely with what they purchase freely. I think it likely that such a music studio would have a lot of bands change labels, for philosophical reasons alone. Everyone knows that artists (of any type) are more likely to be motivated by philosophical reasons than other folks (for example, Britney Spears or Metallica).
I would guess it depends... (Score:2)
If they are just providing transport (IP connectivity), then I can't see the cable companies being responsible.
However, newsgroups are becoming increasingly popular for file exchange (everything from e-books to mp3 to full length movies). In this scenario:
- if the cable company is providing a news server,
- and they are distributing the newsgroups in question to their subscribers (a decision they have to actively make),
- and they are charging (know any that don't
:-)
then I think that the cable company accepts the responsibility and any liability. It's not your responsibility to insure that the movie the cable company puts on channel X is legitimate. Why would it be your responsibility to insure that the movie, e-book, mp3 in newsgroup X (provided by your cable company) is legitimate?Intersting, but... (Score:2)
To use the gun anaolgy here, it's like someone who is caught running guns from Va to NYC: "We'll, the store in Va sold them to us, and Colt made them, but you didn't arrest them. We should be set free as well."
Why do I think there arguement is absurd?
1. You don't have to go after everyone who may have done soemthing illegal, especially in civil cases - the person suing gets to pick and chose. The "he did it too" defense didn't work in kindergarden, and probably won't work here as well.
2. Just as a newstand generally isn't resposnible for some copyright violation in a magazine it carries, and the phone company and phone manufacturer isn't liable for your call giving an illegal stock tip, companies that make software that has legitimate uses aren't going to be liable for illegal activities. Peer2Peer has a lot of legitimate uses, which should be enough to protect the developers. That makes me wonder if there isn't soemthing where the developers said "Let's build something to get around the MPAA/RIAA and what they did to Napster" and tehy're worried. I think they may feel there case is weak and decided to spread some FUD in hopes of avoiding a negative judgement.
I think they are grasping at whatever straws are available to try to salvage their case. The judge's ruling should be interetsing to read.
IANAL
Re:Intersting, but... (Score:2)
It's the logic... (Score:2)
Obviously, I must be concidered a serial rapist... I mean, I have the necessary equipment and everything. We'd better lock me up in the public good.
Not to mention that all you ladies out there must be prostitutes. You all posess the technology...
*Sigh*
Jason
Nice logic...Let's try it the other way around... (Score:3, Funny)
Hey.. that doesn't sound as stupid as I thought... any pro bono lawyers? MAKE MONEY FAST!
Whats next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are a few of the similaries i came up with....
Copiers - Can be used to copy content on mass scales, but arent outlawed
VCRs- Also can be used to copy stuff, and are for the most part used for 'techincally illegal' purposed, but also arent outlawed
Video Cameras - Possible to copy content, but again not outlawed
Still cameras - Not very conventient, but also a means of copying intelectual material
Tape Recorders - Also can be used to copy content, but again no regulations
Pen and paper - Very inconvenient but still possible to copy with, but of course, not outlawed
And some other examples....
You can traffic trugs on the highway, should they be outlawed as well?
Gloves can be used to assist in stealing things without being caught. Should they be outlawed?
Knives can kill someone almost as easily as guns can. Should they to be forbidden?
You can never outlaw everything capable of commiting crimes. And i dont see how the courts have ANY legal backing at all to shut down services such as Napster and Kazaa etc.... They dont force people to commit crimes, they dont assist people in commiting crimes, they make a service available that is very open and leave it up to the users to use it responsibaly. Maybe the RIAA should sue wal mart for displaying their music in a way that makes it *possible* to steal.
Re:Whats next? (Score:2, Insightful)
1: Nerve Gas
2: Powerful tranquilizers (date rape drugs, etc)
3: Weapons-grade (or even industrial-grade) Uranium/Plutonium
This is a sticky situation, as technically everything can be used to commit a crime; however, there are certain things that, in the hands of private citizens, are used for crimes 95% of the time. Perhaps we should just make unlicensed (as in driver's, gun, liquor...) use of file-sharing programs/internet/chewing gun illegal. Just warning against generalizations....
That's an easy one (Score:2, Funny)
A: No. What I do with the road is of my business and responsibility.
Q:Is the phone company liable if I receive death threats from an irate caller ? What if he/she follows through and subsequently tries to physically assault me ? What if I get killed ?
A: Oh my god, you could be killed. Sue everything!
Q: Is Sony the one to be sued if my Discman is old and damaged, refusing to play any CD with a minor scratch or kink, thus discouraging me from buying newer CDs and reducing some fat industry executives' royalty payments ?
A: Absolutely. You're destroying the american economy. Sue Sony, sue the store that sold you the Discman, sue your neighbor because he wouldn't lend you HIS Discman, then once you've sued everyone clean and fattened your wallet, the RIAA will sue YOU just because they can.
Translation: The article points it out quite clearly and honestly that this is yet another stupid frivolous lawsuit that has buckets of legal precedents against it, thus it shouldn't even last 5 minutes in the courtroom. We'll just have to see how effective the legal system really is, or finally admit to ourselves that law is merely a purchased commodity.
A real simple question must be answered. (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to be a den of thieves, you must have thief. If I own a dance club and you bust 2 people a week for breaking the law (selling drugs) in my restroom. Well at that point yes as a business/service I am failing at maintaining proper control. Simply stating that people sell drugs in my bathroom and "everyone" is doing it should not get me in any trouble. If these services are full of people committing crimes start nailing them and then shut the service down. How can a service/company possibly defend themselves if no crimes have BEEN PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW!
This defense seems lame but it is even more lame to think of being brought on charges with NO FELONIES on the books. If 99% of the people use this service illegally this should be easy to accomplish. Then and only then can you attack the business. If we allow companies to be shut down without prior reason we will live in a much different society.
The Blame (Score:2)
I blame it for my huge porn collection, my endless wasted hours playing Rocket Arena or the MMORPG flavor of the week.
I blame it for letting those pesky Chinese seek a voice in the international community despite the heavy handedness of their government. I mean how dare they speak up about their government in a free speech medium!
Hell, I blame AL GORE for inventing it!
Mr. Gore, if you're reading this, I'm sure we can reach an amicable settlement. Please have your checkbook ready.
(Note for those who cannot detect irony, sarcasm, humor or anything else without getting offended: The remark about the Chinese is actually NOT meant to insult the general populace. Thank you, drive through.)
(Note about the note: It seems these days you can't say anything without a disclaimer for the people who take everything literally these days. Blah.)
Guilty as Charged (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word: YES!
The internet is "disruptive technology". Previously publishers added economic value to the stream of commerce that flows from authors and artists to consumers. Suddenly, nearly all creative works can be represented in a digital form (usually with higher quality to boot), reproduced at virtually no cost, and distributed at virtually no cost.
The entire business model of most publishers is now non-value added waste. The market knows it, the people know it, and the publishers even know it.
Unfortunately, our form of government is not geared to be responsive to the public or the market. Free markets and the public demand the elimination of waste, but our form of government is optimized to achieve a different goal: to create a regulatory paradigm where Congress grants regulatory favors to those who are able to contribute the funds needed to assure the reelection of the people in the system.
Our legislators have gone through a vigorous natural selection process that ensures they truly believe it is important to ignore the wishes of the people, indeed even the rights of the people, so as to perpetuate the unnatural power base of a cartel created not by competition, but by regulation even after the very service that it provides can be accomplished on demand by any 10 year old with no out of pocket expense.
The internet was designed precisely to acheive what it does acheive: a radically better way to distribute files. People should see this for what it is and also dispel any feelings of guilt they have for using it to its fullest capabilities to destroy those industries that survive only by misuse of government to protect revenue streams based on turning waste into value based on corrupt regulation.
In fact, EVEN IF a few poor starving millionare artists have to suffer unfairly to achieve it, I recommend that people feel no guilt about sharing files instead of feeding the cartels. It is far better to kill a little skin burning off the leach than to allow it to feed off of you unchecked.
Morpheus vs. Broadband? (Score:2)
If you want a legal service, just bloat it with everything else or sufficently cripple it until you can until file sharing isn't the biggest thing anymore. I haven't seen anyone try taking down irc because of fserve's, have you? Does it make any sense? Nope.
Kjella
Good Counterpoint by Morpheus (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's brilliant.
They're pointing out to the judge that both systems (the internet and the Morpheus system running on the net) allow anonymous, back & forth sharing of files with absolutely no control over IP at any point in the transactions. This point along with the fact that it's the action in using such a tool that's illegal (not the tool itself) are both arguments that, despite reversals in the DeCSS & Napster cases, still have not received proper attention from the court or responses from the plaintiffs. If people can use VCRs to copy TV shows or CD-R drives to copy CDs and it's OK, why can't I download music I already own from Morpheus? I've done it dozens of times -- it's easier than ripping it from CD if I only want to listen to a song or two from something I own. Not even Morpheus is aware of the extent or lack thereof of a legal use for their product. As long as one exists and appears to be being exercised though, they should be allowed to remain in business.
WHY would Morpheus/Gnutella/Grokster/etc or Napster be illegal? The companies do nothing to promote violations of the law other than provide a forum in which you can share data. The net does the same thing -- people provide HTML & other sorts of files & people download them. People do all sorts of illegal things on the net -- scam others, put up child porno, etc, and they should be pursued. We shouldn't shut down the net -- of course not. If I did any of those things I'd be breaking the law, just as I would be if I pirated music over the net. Yet with the net it's me that's performing an illegal act and on Morpheus it's the program's (and the company's) fault. Why the difference? If one is illegal then the other must be, right? Maybe my argument's simplistic, I don't know. But I think they have a point.
shoot the lawers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Blame Al Gore (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Blame Canada! (Score:2)
Re:It's the best lawyers can do (Score:2)
*cough*.... While this may have started *quick* piracy, there are multitudinous volumes of vinyl to mp3 out there. Play, capture, encode.
Re:It's the best lawyers can do (Score:2)
No shit. The Biz got together and decided they could rape the consumer even more if they found a way to distribute music on $.05 discs. "With CD burners costing thousands, no one will ever be able to pirate music, except by taping it, and tapes are of lower audio quality. No one will ever settle for that!"
They have nothing to blame but the current lack of creative quality of modern music, and the death of vinyl. I steal as much music as I can.
Re:The root of the problem (Score:2)
So, "sue ID root" is the same as blaming God? O_0
Soko
Re:this is hyperbolic (Score:2)
If you had read the article....the judge in the Napster case didn't take an issue with Napster's file sharing technology and the use of the Betamax defense....the judge did not conclude that Napster had to be shutdown because its technology was used primarily for illegal activity....the judge in the Napster case saw that Napster controlled a centralized server that held a master list of servers and that napster could concievable use that centralized server to filter content on the network it controlled... and this filtering could be added as a layer over the existing technology....so anyone who used napster technology as is would be able to create the same filtering measures over the existing technology....and even then that can become very murky...if I started using slashdot or any site that used slash to post information about warez sites into comments I posted...would slashdot have to police the comments?
The point is...almost exclusive use of a technology for illegal activity is contrary to he ruling made in the Sony-Betamax case...a technology must only have the "potential" for significant non-infringing use....and any "content neutral" network can be used in legit ways...file shares in MSwindows being a very primative network minus some useful search capabilies...
Napster ran into a problem because the technology they used/created put them in a position of content control...napsters servers knew about the information on each users share. If napster had sold the exact same technology to a company to
be used in say an internal company network to facilite datafiles from user to user napster technology would again be perfectly legal. In that case the company running the internal server would be liable for copy right infringment..not napster for the technology that napster sold.
For decentralized file sharing systems where a master server holds no data...all you can do is hold the person offering the data liable....you can't go after the person creating the technology for not putting in safeguards on copyright infringement....it comes down to if you have control over who is using the technology you created...so napster was really a lawsuit over napsters network policy and not over the technlogy created by napster....
So for P2P which doesn't utilize a central server at all...then who do you sue....the real problems comes when you use a central server just a little bit of handshaking....then in a sense you become an ISP like a broadband ISP...and as an ISP you have some responsibily to police the people connecting to your services...and if they are found to be offering up warez on ftp or http or whatever protocal...through your service then sometimes you have a legal responsiblity to remove that user from your service or be held liable as an ISP for that users infringement.
These cases are really unclear becuase these p2p technology providers aren't just building the tech..they are also acting as ISPs who employ the technology...and it seems like they employ it almost exclusively...or atleast napster did. Napster didn't sell its client/server software to anybody to use i don't think. Which makes all this very murky. It's not the technology thats at issue its really an issue of who as control over the information on the networks..and if someone has control do they have to police the network.
-jef