Mark Cuban to fund Grokster vs. MGM case.

Deadric writes "According to Mark Cuban's latest blog entry, he will help fund the Grokster vs. MGM case, which threatens to destroy the Betamax shield."

Ok, I'll bite...

[Evro]

Who the F is Mark Cuban?

Unfortunately worded

[DSLAMngu]

The headline seemed to indicate that Mark Cuban was funding the destruction of the Betamax shield. Someone should make it clear that he is actually helping the EFF to defend Grokster against the RIAA.

This is not the editors' best work.

Actually...

[Kjella]

One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos, but rather watch TV shows at a more convenient time

...the court recognized that there were people who did this, who probably were in violation of copyright law. An actual infringement is one of the requirements for contributory infringement. What they decided was that the potential illegal uses did not negate the tool's legal uses.

There is no way to rule against Grokster without violating the Betamax shield. Essentially, a tool has legal and illegal uses (specific circumvention tools like DeCSS might not fall under this, but otherwise the Betamax shield is wide). Can we punish the producers because a significant amount of the population chooses to break the law, using their tools?

If so, I would like to see the class action suit against Ford, Mazda, Chevrolet, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW et al for creating tools of speeding. At least around here, official numbers say 90%+ speed at times (and the rest are probably liars). You can fine the perp, but you don't punish the toolmaker.

Kjella

Re:The "Betamax shield" may not fit anyway.

[timeOday]

The question is not whether p2p'ing shows will be legal (it won't). The question is whether p2p itself will be legal, just as the Bemax question was whether VCRs would be legal.

From the article:

the case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation: When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?

in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (a.k.a. the "Sony Betamax ruling") held that a distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. In MGM v. Grokster, the Ninth Circuit found that P2P file-sharing software is capable of, and is in fact being used for, noninfringing uses. Relying on the Betamax precedent, the court ruled that the distributors of Grokster and Morpheus software cannot be held liable for users' copyright violations. The plaintiffs appealed, and in December 2004 the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

the obl joke

[myspys]

not their best work?

you must be new here

this IS as good as it gets around here!

Sorry couldnt resist this

[FidelCatsro]

Viva Cuban ...
This is wonderfull news , We need more people of his financial stature to help take on the errosions of our libertys .Still sad that you need this kind of cash to defend our rights against bussiness in the USA though.
Land of the free as in $

Re:Mark Cuban

[sjwaste]

He's got a tremendous ego, at least the match of Steve Jobs. He's a bit of a control freak. But he knows how to get things done, and despite his ego, he does have a more human and compassionate side.

In my opinion, that's not ego at all. What's wrong with a guy being aware and proud of his own abilities? It seems today everyone tries to go out of their way to make other people feel important even when they're not contributing shit, and anyone who decides they want to admit they've done well has an "ego". Well, it seems he's earned the right to do so.

Re:Actually...

[stubear]

What the OP was saying, and I happen to agree with his point, is that P2P software is not being used to time shift. This was the argument put forth in the Betamax case. It's hard to argue that time shifting is occurring on P2P networks and even if it is, many of the TV shows have been stripped of their commercials, something not easily done with VCRs, especially by those who were simply time shifting TV shows. There are enough differences between these two circumstances, and the climate surrounding copyright and rampant infringement on P2P networks, that Betamax applying is not a slam dunk. The US judicial system is not like some computer program that analyzes simple logic and spits out a result.

Re:Actually...

[cpt kangarooski]

It doesn't have to be. In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court said that technology need only have potential substantial noninfringing uses for the developer to avoid contributory liability.

This serves two purposes: First, it allows the developer and the world time to figure out what the technology is good for. P2P networks are copyright neutral -- anything can go over the network. Thus, copyright holders can take advantage of it as well. Second, it prevents copyright holders -- really a subset of them, in fact (even back in '84, some were in favor of the Betamax) -- to extend their copyright on a specific work to what would effectively be a patent on a technology.

Grokster has won in the lower courts because their case is a slam dunk for Betamax. The only way that they can lose is if Betamax gets overturned.

Re:Kitchen knives

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about advertising, it's about function. Guns are for killing. If they were for target practice, they wouldn't be lethal.

Well, in that case...

[Kjella]

I think that it is very likely that either SCOTUS decides that pirate-to-pirate networks are illegal or Congress does. The RIAA and MPAA bought Orin Hatch long ago.

...I'll just take this opportunity to say good-bye to all my friends in the US, before the lights on your subnet goes out. As much as I'll miss slashdot, I'm sure you will miss Internet more.

Kjella

Re:Mark Cuban

[sjwaste]

just like a lottery winner, whom people call smart because of picking the right numbers success is not proof of cause

Is that what you tell yourself when you come across someone more successful than yourself? Some people might get lucky once (and even that's unlikely when it comes to money, because its a world of vultures anytime a single dollar is involved), but Mark Cuban's business accomplishments simply cannot be denied. It's petty of you to think that he did it without a lot of hard work and solid decisionmaking.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm simply suggesting that using others' success as a model for achieveing your own is probably a better idea than resenting it and saying "they got lucky." I'm fine with saying that about someone who inherits everything they have, but not so much about someone who's made something of himself. It's a reminder of the things that are possible in our economy and society.

Re:Copyright bye bye

[iggymanz]

Copyrights and patents are derived from article I clause 8 of the constitution. That could be changed, but not by everyone standing together and telling the goverment anything, you'd need an amendment. Of course, without copyright, there would be no recognition, any corporation could jack open source code & use for their own purposes without attributing any author (only the excercise of copyright via GPL, BSD license, etc. prevents that now). Most artists, inventors, software and authors would not go for this, I'd bet less than 10% of the populace wants what you want. Also, the goverment and most people would have a huge problem with you copying money, electronic funds transfer keys, nuclear launch codes, credit card numbers, etc. However, there are places on this earth where you can copy as you please; I've been to some of those places. if you live in such a place you'll be wanting to keep your self defense skills honed and carry weapons at all times, lack of regard for life seems to go hand in hand for places that have lack of regard for personal or intellectual property.

Good for Mark

[CokoBWare]

Mark's argument "software doesn't steal music, people steal music" is the same as the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Let's get things into perspective. Technology by itself doesn't do anything unless it's applied. People make the decision to use the software and how to use it. The RIAA got it wrong. The MPSS got it right. Discourage people by educating them on how stealing movies is wrong. How you affect all the little guys. Nobody cares if Britney Spears and fat record execs make less money. Really, they don't.

If record companies stopped killing innovative music, then I think people would care about stealing their stuff. If all people can get it trash, and they see it as trash, then they will respect it as trash. Pop music has become trash. Since people see it this way, and that's the only stuff they can get, they steal it cuz it's worth nothing to them anyways.

People steal music, not software.

We don't want to lose this one...

[Eric Damron]

This is an incredibly important case. At its core is the question: Can the makers of a product or the providers of a service be held responsible for the misuse of that product or misuse of that service?

Can the maker of DVD recording equipment be held liable for you or I using that equipment (and/or programs) to distribute copyrighted material. Can ISPs be held liable for any illegal use of their services? And let's push it to its limit: Can gun manufacturers be held liable when the equipment they make is used to commit a crime?

If this appeal succeeds, be afraid.

Re:He's gotta be strong, & he's gotta be large

[Anonymous Coward]

He's out to be more than the average joe like you, who makes a point that he can catch blatantly intentional grammar errors.

He's out to make a stand, draw media attention, and make it an even bigger case. This is now an undeniable part of the justice system in America.

Yes, he wants to be a hero, and he's actually becoming one. He's not sitting at home criticizing someone else's efforts in an attempt to gain brownie points from the slashdot skeptic/cynic crowd.

overstated, and missing the big picture

[sbma44]

Yes, burned CDs suffer from bitrot. But most of the other sources of data loss you mention are either very rare or not applicable. Conversions are usually lossy, but they generally don't need to be performed more than once. If someone wants to download a divx rip of a DVD, the original mpeg2 stream has suffered a lossy recompression, yes, but each subsequent transmission of that divx file doesn't result in more loss. This is in contrast to analog formats -- the act of distribution necessarily introduces a loss of quality. That's not the case with digital files. Your concerns about transmission errors and hard disk failures are just silly. These things happen, but rarely, and certainly not in a way that introduces quality defects in the "authoritative" copy of a piece of media on a p2p network (ie, the most popular copy of a file, with same-hash files considered identical (b/c they are)). You might want to have a look at wikipedia's entries under "crc" and "hashing". Your intuition that bits occasionally get flipped is correct, but when it happens it's almost always detected and corrected.

The RIAA/MPAA would LOVE no competition!

[hadaso]

Right now they argue about copyright infringement by individuals. But in the longrun, what worries them is competition: competition from independent artists that realize they don't have to sign slavery agreements. And competition from their own past (just like book authors complain now about competition from their own used books on Amazon). They would like to own the net and make the rules!

The assymetry between uplink and downlink bandwidth for the consumer means that only a tiny fraction of what is available on P2P networks can actually be transferred by the network. A single person sharing files is limited by uplink bandwidth, and cannot really supply more than a few minutes of music a day. What the recording "industry" (actually distributors) are doing when taking individuals to court is actually abusing existing law that was made for a world were infringers would typically be mass infringers that do it for profit. A single infringement means a huge fine, but it was made so by lawmakers in a world where a single infringement caught (a single copied CD)would represent mass infringement (a warehouse full of couterfit CDs somewhere). It is necessary because criminals hide a well as they can, and law enforcement needs to be able to use what evidence they can lay hands on. In P2P networks it's quite the opposite: file sharers don't hide. They make their collections available online for evryone to see without really trying to conceal who they are. Copyright holders can then find individuals offering thousands of tracks. But in reallity these are offered through a very narrow channel: you can see all, but you can only sample very little. But the law can still be used to fine them as if for every track they expose they have a truck full of copies and no constarint on distribution!