I think we should wait for the text of the ruling to be posted online (to happen here) [supremecourtus.gov] before rushing to say "the sky is falling". We'll be much wiser after reading what they had to say.

AP has a story [ap.org]. It seems the ruling turned on the grounds that they distributed the software "with the object of promoting infringement of copyright", and that they may be liable for third-party infringement by their users, depending on how egregious this promition was. We'll only know had bleak the future is though after reading what the justices had to say.

How can they directly contradict a previous ruling? How is it possible that the constitution says one thing one day and another another day... Reform time? The supreme court is becoming more and more pointless every day IMHO....

I'll bite: first of all, the previous rulings could have been wrong (try Korematsu v. US [findlaw.com]). Secondly, a good part of the US legal community (especially on the so-called "liberal" side), believes that the meaning of the constitution does depend on time. For example, that a citizen's right "due process of law" could encompass different things 200 years after it was written. Just becase the internet didn't exist in 1790 doesn't mean that your due process rights don't extend there, right?

I happen to be much more of an originalist than the "changing community standard re: death penalty" supreme court, but the "living document" view is not outright wrong.

Finally, the circumstances of this case might be different from the last one. Hence the differing result!

Bram Cohen is not guilty. Tim Berners-Lee is not guilty. Settle down.

Read the opinion [ap.org].

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

...

In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.

MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.

1. The Opinion of the Court [ap.org], but Justice Souter.
2. The Concurrence [ap.org] of Justice Ginsburg, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy.
3. The Concurrence [ap.org] of Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor.

In other words, the SCt weaseled out of a definitive ruling on the P2P question. They're good at weaseling out of such decisions these days - quite a shame. Maybe the next P2P company targeted by the AAs will push the Court to a clear ruling... maybe not then, either.

Bravo. What is it with our culture now? Making mature, considered decisions about something, decisions that require other parties to consider them outside the world of newsbites and so on, is now considered a sign of weakness, is it?!?

A moral person isn't someone who makes a confusion of rash, instinctive decisions about right and wrong. Moral people struggle to figure out what to do, and often their decisions are qualified by the stuff they've considered along the way. It's called being a danged adult.

The Supreme Court, for all the current right-wing majority's nascent authoritarian learnings, is not in the business of sweeping decisions that reach far beyond the cases brought before them. Their 10 Commandments decision's coming up, and they're not going to be extending it to cover "In God We Trust" and evolution in schools just because they want to take a stand. There's a process, and it's not weak or waffly to follow it.

How mature are we, anyway?

I'm guessing you didn't read the decision, which isn't all that surprising. They specifically state that the Betamax rule didn't apply at all in this case. The issue in this case was that the companies promoted their software for the purpose of infringing on copyright. Just because the software was capable of legal uses doesn't mean the law turns a blind eye to people who are trying to profit off of massive copyright infingement, which is exactly what Grokster and Streamcast were trying to do. The more people who infringed on copyright, the more ad revenue they got.

The part of the ruling that I take issue with is that they cite advertising their services as a Napster replacement as proof that they were trying to get people to infringe on copyright with their services. That makes no sense. File sharing networks were a relatively new thing at the turn of the century, and many people wouldn't know what they were talking about if they advertised it as such. However, everyone had heard of Napster. Instead of just saying "Use our file sharing network," they could say "Use our file sharing network! It's kind of like Napster!" and people would automatically understand. That's not illegal, that's just smart advertising.

Regardless, Grokster and Streamcast are extemely stupid companies who were trying to get sued for name recognition, and they should have expected to have to pay for it in the end.

The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product. We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

If it was all about business, marijuana would be as legal as milk. Bringing the pot economy out of the black market and into the white market would be incredibly good for the national economy in a huge variety of ways (although such a change might make some workers less productive).

But my point is that it's not all about business. There's some insane prejudice involved also.

The laws prohibiting marijuana were lobbied for in the 20's and 30's by "yellow journalists". These were newspaper men who sold large quanitites of newspapers and had large stakes in wood pulp based newsprint. Hemp newsprint was cheaper to produce and did not suffer the yellowing that wood pulp newsprint suffered. The newspaper men (in particular, Hearst) imported the word marijuana from mexico (it sounds bad to american ears, unlike hemp) and started a smear campaign, eventually getting hemp banned in the US.

So yes, it was all about business, and a carefully crafted smear campaign that managed to poison real debate for decades.

Let me see here. What ammunition specifically are you talking about? Virtually any round fire from a rifle has the power to penetrate a 'bullet-proof' vest. They are only designed to stop handgun bullets. And that's about all they do.

The same ammunition used in common hunting rifles would slice through a kevlar vest like butter. If, perhaps, you are referring to the 5.7x28mm pistol round that was recently making the frenzied media headlines, the steel-cored version can't be sold here.

They did, in Eldred [findlaw.com]. We lost...

Unfortunately, at this time (I'm at work) I can't conduct an exhaustive online search for unbiased data, especially due to the aforementioned excess of chaff in the search. There are, however, a few points which I think are reasonably established for which data shouldn't be as hard to come by:

• Hearst's newspapers (intentionally or not) cast marjiuana in a very negative light
• Hearst's newspapers never linked the words marjiuana and hemp (actually, I think they used the spelling marihuana)
• Hearst's newspapers recast other stories that had been linked to other drugs to refer to marjiuana instead
• Hearst had lost substantial acreage to Mexico (frequently cited as a motive)
• In 1917 a machine was invented (by George Schlichten) which could produce hemp paper for half the price of conventional newsprint.

I recommend reading the timeline at the link above. It seems fairly conservative, lacking quite a number of the more tenuous claims made elsewhere.

Umm dude, speaking as one of the people who "brutally" put down the revolution (D Co, 1/149 Armor, CA ARNG), it was nothing of the sort. It was a bunch of people out to destroy and steal what they could while the police were overwhelmed. They had no political agenda beyond "I want that TV" or "I want to burn down that shop". Look at some of the TV interviews with looters during the riots- they're quite honest about what they were doing.

As far as being brutally put down, my unit despite being in one of the absolute worst areas of LA (Rampart) did not fire a shot, and indeed never used physical force beyond rounding up some illegal immigrants. (INS had a field day) The rioters in our area were in far more danger from the Korean storeowners who were armed to the teeth and not afraid to shoot back. There were a few bad instances (one about two blocks from my HQ) but the Guard had all the free food we could eat- people were stopping us on the streets to thank us for being there.

Simple google search: iranian nobel ban.

Even covered by the neocon press. Second hit is an article referencing the Wall Street Journal [pen.org] talking about her suit against the Justice department for banning her book. Her book being banned is just one of many types of things banned from print in America.

While she might obtain an exception due to her stature, he, correctly, stands on principle against this sort of American censorship.