Supreme Court Takes Hard Look at P2P 489
Patrick Mannion writes "Supreme Court justices quizzed attorneys for file-swapping software companies and Hollywood studios Tuesday, in a case that will help determine the future of both the technology and entertainment industries. In their questions, the justices were critical of the entertainment industry's proposal, which would hold companies "predominantly" supported by piracy liable for copyright infringement. However, they showed little sympathy for the file-swapping companies' business model."
Supreme Court Takes Hard Look At P2P... (Score:2, Funny)
Business Model? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business Model? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Business Model? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business Model? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Business Model? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I can.
N.Y. jury finds some gun makers liable in shootings [cnn.com]
Not that I personally agree with it.
Re:Business Model? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do wonder if the gun makers found liable in that case appealed the matter. News stories about lawsuits always piss me off because they only announce two things: filed lawsuits and dollars given. If a case is dismissed as frivolous by a judge, that never gets reported; and if a case is appealed, that never gets reported. For instance, the McDonald's coffee case was ill-reported as it was, but the media didn't tell you that the woman's award was significantly reduced after the jury verdict was announced. Simply put, the vast majority of what happens in court isn't news-worthy. (Although if it happens in criminal court and there is a celebrity defendant, somehow everything that happens becomes monumental and deserving of widespread media coverage. What color underwear was Jacko wearing in court today, anyhow?)
Re:Business Model? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Business Model? (Score:2)
Re:Business Model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Business Model? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tobacco CEO "Hey, were lying to & killing our customers for money, but so what, it makes us cash to pay the suckers in congress to keep them off our backs!"
McDonald's CEO: "Let's hire a bunch of low paid workers and get rich off of them. Slaves even made more money than what were paying them!"
Re:Business Model? (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice is key.
Re:Business Model? (Score:2)
Also, the big concern here is that people can and will build business models around what the law allows and what it proscribes. If you know that you can get away with it because there is exactly one le
Supreme court takes hard look at P2P (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Supreme court takes hard look at P2P (Score:2)
maybe the spirit of p2p -IS- eric duckman; the selection most networks have (lotsa pr0n) would lend to his tastes too..
Re:Supreme court takes hard look at P2P (Score:3)
the Supreme Court has proven time and time again its ability to make wise decisions
Dred Scott v. Sandford? - Don't like slavery in your state? Too bad!
Plessy v. Fergeson? - "Separate but equal" turned out to be "Separate and massively different."
Roe v. Wade? - Found a "Right to Privacy" and fostered a period of intense politicization of judicial appointments.
Bush v. Gore? - Equal protection for voting standards only applies if it helps a Republican President get elected.
They will leave it to congress (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, many legal observers say the high court is likely to leave the law largely as is and if it wants a different outcome, to ask Congress to change the copyright law.
Re:They will leave it to congress (Score:2)
you're presupposing that p2p networks are illegal. the reason this belongs in the courts at this point is because that has not yet been determined. at the conclusion of this case, or if it is thrown out one in the future, we will know if we need new laws or not. it is entirely possible, and feasible imho, for the courts to say, "you cannot prove the inherent illegality of p2p networks, therefore they, as a whole, are legal."
Actual Court Transcript (Score:5, Funny)
Supreme Court: How?
RIAA: They are giving our product away.
Techie: I got a one line perl script p2p software.
RIAA: Arrest that thief.
Supreme Court: We'll just rule out that script as illegal and take it off the market.
Techie: Sure.
RIAA: WTF, he's got like 20 scripts in 20 languages.
Transcript (cont'd): (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actual Court Transcript (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA: Arrest that thief.
Finally! perl coders being treated the way they should have a long time ago.
More details here (Score:5, Informative)
What about open source p2p (Score:2, Insightful)
who have no buisness model at all ! not that a bad ruling would make a difference , the internet is global , the cat IS out of the bag and congress and their bribers might be suprised that their legal decisions will not affect the other 5 billion people living in countries where their wants and laws have exactly 0 influence
of course the p2p creators will just move to less opressive countries, it works for gambling and porn sites
the "free world" has moved on, unfortunatly corporate America hasn't
Re:What about open source p2p (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, just like they did with DMCA. Republicrats and Democans can all be purchased for the proper amount of bribes. Of course it is not called a bribe, but campaign contributions. The entertainment companies have a lot of money, but then do the technology companies. The outcome may be determined by which is able or willing to buy more legislators. What the public wants or needs will not be considered, just as it was not when the DMCA was enacted.
Justices (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Justices (Score:3)
On a completely unrelated note, interesting journal entries.
Here's to Nashville (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't hate musicians, or want them to starve, but I hate the slime they have to deal with now to distribute, and I want those people to starve. Twice.
I'm in favor of the entertainment industry having to undergo monstrously painful changes. From what I can see, many people are - the way it is currently designed is destructive to both society and art as a whole. What we hear and see being run by a bunch of profiteering luddites is completely unappealing to me.
Just thought I'd be one of fifty to present this argument in the next ten minutes.
Re:Here's to Nashville (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
This will enable them to make a stronger case in their basic "p2p is bad" argument, when it's not the way it should be. Hopefully they will view the two things differently
sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:4, Insightful)
P2P is basically publishing. Why should you be allowed to publish my stuff, if I hold the copyright?
These rights go away with time when the copyright expires. (A really stupid long time, thanks congress)
If a creator wants to make something public domain then they can do that. If they want to paid for something they create, they should be able to do that too. (my photos are routinely hot linked as bloggers backgrounds and I don't care, so I don't sue)
Whats with the right to do what you want with whatever you want all of a sudden?
Re:sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should "intellectual property owners" have special privileges with regard to their products which allow them to override normal private property rights?
Does a cabinet maker get to control how people use the cabinets that the cabinetmaker has sold them? (I suppose he could always make them sign a contract, but I suspect he'd lose a lot of customers that way.)
Stupid analogy (Score:2)
Your point is you should be allowed to do what you want with what you buy. I used to make tape copies of my cds/records to listen in my car. I don't think a single person was every sued for doing that.
The fact that stupid people decide to republish stuff they don't own means the industry and government will push more and more restrictive DRM uppon us, screwing those who just want to enjoy what they've bought.
Re:sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is very simple in this situation.
1.) P2P file-sharing is just a technology, neither good nor bad.
2.) Copyright infringement of other people's stuff, no matter how many people try to justify it, is ethically wrong.
The big struggle with this is coming from frightened content owners who realize that people are lazy and don't care and will pirate anything they can get their hands on, simply because human natur
P2p isn't the problem (Score:2)
The way its being used it the problem. It has some great uses (linux distos on torrent is one).
-A
Re:sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you justify this statement, given that "copyright infringement" has no consistent definition ?
"Copyright infringement" in, say, Australia (where we can't even legally record most things off TV) is a very different things to "copyright infringment" in, say, the US.
The big struggle with this is coming from frightened content owners who realize that people are lazy and don't care and will pirate anything they can get their hands on, simply because human nature is such that if you can get something without paying for it, you will.
This is not true at all. Exhibit A: bottled water.
All "content owners" have to do is make things cheap, attractive and easy enough and the vast bulk of customers will pay for their goods. The problem is "content owners" aren't prepared to price their stuff low enough.
Frankly, piracy is wrong and always will be wrong, [...]
That is rather dependant on your view of copyright and "intellectual property" in general.
[...] and legal downloading like iTunes is already taking off, which means most pirates are so cheap that they're not willing to spend 99 cents on a song.
I'm not prepared to spend that much on a song - more accurately, I'm not prepared to spend that much on a bunch of songs. US$0.99/song still works out to roughly the same price as buying an entire album's worth of songs - the only major different being buying per-song allows you to make sure you get only the songs you want. That's not even taking into account the lower sound quality and additional restrictions typically inherent to on-line music stores.
Re:sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sould creators have some rights too.. (Score:2, Redundant)
Government interests (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in general the courts have decided that the government has an interest in preventing crimes, not just punishing them.
That means that sometimes they'll make activities illegal even when they don't harm anybody. Owning an unregistered gun is usually illegal, even if you don't shoot anybody. Driving while intoxicated is illegal even if you don't hit anybody. Owning cocaine has legitimate medical purposes, but try telling the court that you have a gram to fix nosebleeds. Lockpicks and other tools often used in the commission of crimes are illegal in some places.
If they find that a bit of technology is used primarily for illegal purposes, they'll make the technology itself illegal. It's not a very libertarian attitude, and in the cases I cited there are plenty of people who would say that the court is wrong. And it certainly conflicts with your rights in a strict-constructionist sense. But the courts have often found that "insure domestic Tranquility" can include preventative measures.
So feel free to disagree with it, but their reasoning shouldn't be totally opaque.
Hard Cases = Bad Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the only tool really before the Court is an overturning of the Betamax doctrine, which was decided with a much more sympathetic defendent.
This is one of the few cases I can think of where the appropriate charge should have been conspiracy. It's a crappy bit of law, but it would actually fit. As it is, I'm afraid that the Defendents may have screwed us all.
Re:Hard Cases = Bad Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Or explaining in what way this is different from Betamax. The cases are similar in a general sense (a technology with potential copyright-infringement possibilities but also legitimate uses). But they're different in balance.
The Betamax technology already had a large installed base of users who were using it primarily for time-shifting. Although it co
Re:Hard Cases = Bad Law (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand you want to argue this is different than Betamax, but you you did not actually do so.
In this case it can be argued that the existing P2P programs are used primarily for copyright infringement.
In other words you are suggesting overturning Betamax.
What Betamax says is: "it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses".
You are trying to make an argument that providing a perfectly legitimate product to a perfectly legitimate
Re:Hard Cases = Bad Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you have another problem here. Business model may be a legitimate target but it doesn;'t get you off the hook here.... IIRC, Grokster is largely a Gnutella-based system and interop
Aha! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Aha! (Score:2)
Please don't guilt trip me, it won't help you... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, I am all for supporting artists that support the free distribution of their music. You want to make money from me? Allow your fans to put your live shows up on the various torrent sites (etree, easytree, etc) and I'll take a listen and possibly buy your stuff. If you expect me to take the $10 risk and buy your stuff before getting a good
Predominantly Pirate (Score:3, Insightful)
Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres why (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, you can't restrict people's ussage of P2P just because P2P it is also used for piracy, after all P2P is probably one of the most useful networking patterns in existence for all kinds of things.
If I were the enterntainment industry, I'd embrace P2P as it solves one of the biggest problems they face today: Bandwith to millions of people. This just goes on to show that the people running the enterntainment industry are dinosaurs falling behind the times.
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the analogy, but I'd say that modern P2P is more like the broadsword--you can use it to cook or you can use it to kill people, but you can be damn sure that it was designed with a specific purpose in mind...
Yes, P2P is used for plenty of legal activity. A P2P application, in and of itself, does not violate the law. You're lying to yourself, though, if you suggest that the driving force behind P2P is anything other than illegal file sharing.
I, too, think that the court will find in favor of P2P, but honestly, there are no good guys in court today. One side is a pack of morally bankrupt, lying weasels who claim to be looking out for the little guy but are really in it for the money--but I don't care too much for the other side, either.
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that "P2P" is not monolithic, and each variation requires a different analogy. Things like Grokster were certainly intended to aid (illicit) media swapping, and their associated business entities don't help to dissuade this notion. OTOH we have stuff like BitTorrent, which has literally enourmous [google.com] non-infringing uses (result #3 and similar notwithstanding).
Hmm...I'm having trouble here, what kind of blade is BitTorrent? Maybe a chainsaw powered by a b
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:2)
Not saying I agree or disagree with said ruling, but it's likely the way it'll pan out...
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:2)
And that's the point of the Supreme Court looking at this case: to decide whether P2P is more like a kitchen knife (a helpful thing that can be used to
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:2)
Re:Prediction: Court rules in favor of P2P. Heres (Score:3, Insightful)
That analogy only goes so far. Dynamite, for example, can be used in construction or mining, but can also be used to blow people up. In most or all countries, explosives are legal but highly regulated.
I'm not saying that your kitchen knife analogy is invalid, just that the principle you extrapolate from it is
Thank God there's UseNet (Score:4, Funny)
When Law and Technology Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Darwin, while disputed frequently, did a decent job of proving that which fails to adapt will fade into history. Unfortunately when the times show you have no recourse to stop an action, you will do more damage to yourself to try and hold back the tides.
I anticipate a ruling in favor of file sharing networks. I suspect this ruling primarily because:
Hopefully such a ruling will encourage the RIAA to redefine themselves and evolve into something better
Or at least get rid of a few of the fluff artists.
Re:When Law and Technology Fail (Score:2)
Couldn't point-to-point be interpreted as "a way of sending arbitrary data through one or more peers to get from source or destination".
In the majority of cases, this arbitrary data is not a file. More, something along the lines of "who has xyz?" and "connect to abc". The actual filetransfer is frequently done direct.
But then if anyone patents that idea, we're all screwed
It will b
The scary part about it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it becomes entirely about who is lining whose pockets. The RIAA, with the help of some of its friends, has a decent shot at buying what it wants.
Granted there are opponents w/ money, but the RIAA has proven to be very motivated.
Re:The scary part about it is... (Score:2)
Re:The scary part about it is... (Score:2)
"The best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity." - Yeats
what's the best way to support musicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the question of compensating artists has not been addressed. We need to create an environment where downloaders want to support musicians they love rather than simply downloading their stuff for free.
Musicians need to start setting up tipjars [imaginaryplanet.net] and consumers need to ask rigorous question about how much of anything they purchase goes to an intermediary.
I recently went to a concert of Kristin Hersh where she sold no CD's but encouraged people to support her by buying mp3's of demos off her website [throwingmusic.com]. I bought $20 of mp3's off her website, of which Hersh received a significant percentage. Is that the future?
Here are some other thoughts about how to reward musicians [idiotprogrammer.com]
Tip Jars dilbert... (Score:2)
Laughable..
Buying direct is a better way. I try to buy cds at shows because I feel the artist gets more.
If you can promote your artists better than the big labels you go ahead.. You'll make $.
Why no one has set up a decent music review/sample site is beyond me. with "pod casted" reviews and samples that would be neat.
For what its worth itunes sells many small label bands.
Re:what's the best way to support musicians? (Score:3, Interesting)
Buying the CD gives most of the money to intermediates;
Buying a used CD gives those no money, but gives none to the artists eit
When you download copyrighted music... (Score:2, Redundant)
Oh yeah, this too [modernhumorist.com].
Count me in (Score:3, Interesting)
business issues (Score:3, Interesting)
By suing these sharing networks, the industry is trying to alleviate its "systemic" risk, allowing at least perceptions of control to come into play. Albeit this is a false sense of control, Sharman et al couldn't possibly be considered liable for what downloaders of their software do, but they're going to make a case for it regardless.
In a back room somewhere, some finance intern has calculated that by liquidating all these software developers in a successful law suit will apply the current value of those companies and bring the music industry to a break-even point which will in turn allow them to make their stock numbers. Allowing the CEO's and likewise glorified fattened calves to keep their jobs and drive their $100,000 motorcars, live in their million dollar homes, and guarantee their children into Harvard and Yale through endownment donations.
Yay Capitalism.
predominant (Score:5, Insightful)
You can shoot the messenger, but another will rise in its place.
Note to the RIAA/MPAA: profit from P2P, instead of trying to fight it. You've just had the most powerful and potentially convenient distribution method in the world dropped in your laps, and it costs you nothing to distribute content now. If you can't find a way to increase your profits in light of that, then you deserve extinction. Someone will rise to replace you, too.
Looks good (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
The Best Part of This (Score:4, Interesting)
The term I heard used today was "inducement." Basically, can it be argued that Grokster induces crime. I sure hope this thing is laughed out of court because, while I understand that physical world analogies fail and it's more complicated than a lot of folks will admit, the precedent that would be set if software is found to be inherently criminal would have the potential to set us into a freakin dark ages.
I mean, it's already happening [slashdot.org].
Working Artists? (Score:2, Interesting)
NPR puff piece on the subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually, NPR excels in their reporting. But on this subject (as well as the subject of low-power FM broadcasting, another place where public radio puts its own interests above those of the public) they fall way short.
Re:NPR puff piece on the subject (Score:4, Interesting)
So much for the "NPR loves the little guy, FOX loves the big corporations" stereotypes.
Nothing new about the questions they ask (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, especially not one who brings cases before the supreme court, but of what little I know of judges this isn't a surprise.
I've had a few traffic tickets and I've even taken an old landlord to court. Every one of those judges, fair as they were, were highly critical, probative, and stern in their questioning of both sides. In other words, they were grumpy and downright rude. However, fortunately in my cases, they showed no favoritism to either side and ruled impartially. I expect this behavior they gave to both sides. Hell if you think your case is important enough to take to the surpreme court you damn well better take any kind of rudeness they give you and say "yes your honor may I have another?"
A big part of this is because judges are never trained to be nice. Judges especially, but laywers in general often seem to lack basic courtesies, especially in court. Another large part of it is because the US system is set up as an advesarial system so there's a lot of bad vibes in a court room that would make anyone stressed and grumpy. But the biggest part is they are simply getting down to business and trying to find the facts. Setting both sides on their heels by asking tough questions is how the supreme court works and how they come to the final answer. If you are coming to the highest court in the land you better come prepared with some pretty damn good answers.
Enough media hype of the judicial process... I want to know the answer the surpreme court comes up with!
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Went to the supreme court this morning (Score:5, Interesting)
The pro-RIAA/MPAA/MGM protesters showed up first, at maybe 8:45am. They tried to go up on the steps leading to the court building, but police told them they needed to stay on the sidewalk. This group of folks then hung out for a little while with their signs (one which read "Thou shalt not steal. -God"), then some of them took out their guitars and started playing and singing.
Then at around 9am, the protesters from the Consumer Electronics Association [ce.org] showed up, with black shirts reading "Save Betamax" in white letters. They were met with a some cheers from some folks in the waiting lines as they left their bus and assembled on the sidewalk a little ways away from the rival protesters. They had more creative signs compared to the musician protesters. The interesting thing to note were different demographics of the two protesting groups. The musicians were mostly middle-aged white men. The electronics advocates were generally younger, and had more of a mix of genders and races.
The news media started showing up in full force at around 9:30, and took some interviews with various people, including folks from both protest groups, and random people (including a teenager from a school group). I saw cameras from NBC, ABC, Channel One and Reuters. The media seemed to be focusing a lot of attention on the musician protest group, as at least one of their members was always being interviewed. However, that might have had something to do with them having guitars and making music, which got them attention.
The crowd waiting to get in seemed to be either on the side of Grokster or ambivalent. I took some photos, which I'll put up on Flickr [flickr.com] (tagged "Grokster" or something like that) or the dc metblog [metblogs.com] when I get home from work.
These guys are representing P2P? (Score:3, Insightful)
Far Reaching Industry Effects (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company ( or person ) can be held legally accountable for the improper use of his product then many industries are screwed and this could wreak havoc on the countries economy due to the litigious nature of the present day.
Everyone from car manufacturers, to gun makers could now be argued, with this precedent, that they are liable. Even a brick manufacturer could conceivably sued under this pretense.
The fall out of this case may just effect the long term viability of this country.
Why don't we question the legality of copyrights? (Score:3, Insightful)
i'm not going to even touch the particular argument about whether P2P software or activities are inherently illegal or not because i'll make my vote on my own.
what bothers me is the inherent idea of copyrighting materials. i believe as most people presumably do that it is fair to expect to make a living off the work you produce. but i don't see how it is an automatic right that anything you make muscially should sustain you for years, particularly if you never do anything again.
as an activist for freedom of speech, i will certainly allow that a song of revolution is equally valuable as a novel that shook the world. but as a consumer, i'll tell you that i think the average Britney Spears schmaltz isn't worth even listening to the ads on the radio, let alone paying money for it. and the fact that twenty years from now, they'll be selling minivans to her current fans using that song just saddens me. the fact that any person can cruise talentlessly through the music industry and then get huffy about protecting their right to live off that "work" just makes me laugh
but what makes me cry is something different. take the example of Happy Birthday. one of those universal songs, you might end up singing it every month for the rest of your life (certainly around my office you do). it is one of the cornerstones of Western culture, a part of our collective social imaginary. we as a people sing this song in celebration time and again.
unless of course you're in the movies or a commercial or television. because yes, somebody wrote it and they expect to get paid. who cares if they're ninety year old ladies at this point. or for that matter, who cares if it's the children of those 90 year old ladies. or for that matter if it's Vivendi Universal or BMG or Sony who bought the rights to the copyright off the children of those now-dead 90 year-old ladies but still stand up demanding their 18 cents everytime it's played in a commercial setting.
yes it makes sense that you should get a living out of the works you produce, but frankly with patents and copyrights being given extensions time and again, these works are money-earning products so long past any human lifespan that the idea of the creator making a living from it has been lost. give them five years. give them twenty years. i think it's fair that a generation should pass before something enters the public domain (though it still seems too long).
the fact is that copyright has become an inalienable right to be greedy about some cute catchy riff that has all the weight or importance of that pothole i ran over yesterday. it protects the rights of singularly untalented people and defies the truth that some songs have been embraced and loved by humanity.
Re:Why don't we question the legality of copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Ye gads, I have to punt the mod points on this one. Where did you get this shit? Certainly not the constitution. Read it. Here's what it says in section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power (...) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Autho
Are ISP's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Couldn't the music biz interpret this too as aiding file-sharing and destroying their business model? Perhaps Shaw and Telus (2 major high-speed ISP's here) need to be shutdown?
Vip
Re:Are ISP's next? (Score:3, Informative)
No, because there is plenty of music available for legitimate sharing and downloading with the blessing of its copyright holders. (An example: Magnatune [magnatune.com]).
It is therefore a very legitimate feature for ISPs to advertise - and this is becoming more and more so as sharing-friend
Photocopier (Score:5, Insightful)
Would text scanners exist at all?
These both have infringing uses but they are not the subject of lobbying groups attempting to deny their very existance.
It is all about powerful lobby groups attempting to maintain their stranglehold on media creation and deny the people their voice. (Ok that is a little strong). It is about $$$$.
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:2)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:2)
If anything the questions from the bench I read tended to support the little guy.
They were especially concerned that the hypothetical garage-based inventor of the iPod would be unable to bring his product to market for the near certainty of being crushed by copyright infringement claims were the case decided in favor of MGM.
The attorney for MGM tried to argue for an active inducement requirement for such claims, but we have to assume they'd c
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, come on. The court was being critical on both sides. Hence the part of the justices were critical of the entertainment industry's proposal, which would hold companies "predominantly" supported by piracy liable for copyright infringement.
So to you, when they say they're critical of the entertainment industry's proposals, that means they really not? Er...what you talking bout Willis?
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:2)
This is what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to get at every aspect of the controversy at hand. The controversy here is that the music industry thinks that anything that can be used to infringe a copyright is inherently bad, while
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, I still have copyrighted software and magazines that will have my copyright 70 years after I die - and in my family we live about 100 years on average, so I'm expecting my copyrights will expire in 2130 or so. This is just plain wrong.
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More proof the Supremes work for Business (Score:2)
Even if you disagree with them, they do a great job of asking tough questions and addressing tough issues that guide our country as a whole. Their decisions are well laid out and it's really great to read dissenting opinions. Those are always the most fun.
Re:Activist Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! Keep the decisions in Congress, where they are more easily bought and paid for!
From the sound of it, the court is taking a reasonable approach. Have some faith in the institution, they have a hell of a track record.
Re:Activist Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Activist Court (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What /. pirates don't want you to know (Score:2)
Usurper_ii
Re:What /. pirates don't want you to know (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice; flame the Slashdot readers by calling them all pirates. A work of genius.
To be sure
Re:What /. pirates don't want you to know (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough. But filesharing is not just people wanting to get stuff for free, which is the point of this court case.
What am I getting for free by spending a big chunk of my web server's bandwidth allocation seeding a torrent [alaska.edu] of the Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] DVD, for example? (If you're downloading that and one of your peers is sending you a couple megabits/sec of data, that's probably me. You're welcome!) If Grokster and company lose this suit, it will quit
Re:P2P is like Prohibition (Score:3, Interesting)
Why was making bathtub gin wrong? Perhaps you meant that it was illegal (unless you're at Stage 4 in Kohlberg's [wikipedia.org] Moral Development scheme.)