Supreme Court Rules against Grokster 1249
furry_wookie writes "A few minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unaniumously against Grokster today. This ruling means that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the Internet. More info about the case here." That's not an entirely accurate statement -- what The Supremes said is that "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses." The promotion is the key part of that statement.
Update: 06/27 18:00 GMT by T : Reader SilentBob4 points out this interview with EFF attorney Wendy Seltzer on the decision.
If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
corporate dogs (Score:2, Insightful)
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
See? Now I'm good.
Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
Double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this is not the end to piracy... just a new step...
Only if they Promote Killing People with it .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that is something I'd like to see
Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not legal to promote the illegal uses of that device.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. You can make the device, you just aren't allowed to actively benefit from its illegal use.
by the same logic (Score:1, Insightful)
Promoting Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:0, Insightful)
Times change, people change, laws should change with them.
Big Margin Surprising, But Not the Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
selling a sporty car = speeding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "intent" test is troublesome (Score:4, Insightful)
How are you supposed to read the minds of the developers to figure out if they "intended" to promote illegal use? Almost every designer of P2P software probably knew perfectly well that the service would be used to trade illegal copies, but they also believed that distribution of legal content is also something that would be promoted. Would it have to be "primary intent" to promote illegal use or just "secondary intent" is enough?
Also, in such "dual use" cases, it's strange to say that the service must be held liable only because the creator knew that illegal uses could be made of it and openly admitted it (equivalent to "promotion"). You end up cutting out all the legal uses too. This is the sort of "chilling efects" that we don't want to happen under the 1st Amendment.
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be true if you didn't take a moment to realize that our legislatures are more interested in corporate giveaways and popularity contests, and the American public is so apathetic, it's basically abdicated its responsibility as citizens to instead become consumers and ratings numbers.
In that light, I think the courts are forced to be the adults around here, whether they want to be or not.
The courts have faield the peopel again! (Score:3, Insightful)
This yanks the Betamx case from underneath Grokster, and forces a trail in the 9th circuit. Bascially, it gives the MPAA and RIAA a big biag hammer, and the only thign stopping is is the amount of money Grokster can spend at trial. This may bankrupt them, cause the cause te be decided by money, instead of a jury. And even then, an ignorant jury can issue some pretty bad verdicts.
Teh worst thing? Betamax no longer protects P2P - the Supremes have screwed the Betamax ruling over. Under thier ruling, the whole internet can be shut down and ISP's sued for infringement becuase they provide something that might be used for infringement.
What the hell is wrong with the courts? Its akin to convicting a woman of prostitution becasue she is "equipped" to commit the crime.
First the States rights are trampled in the Med Marijuana case, then the individual rights are trampled in the "Takings" case, now online rights are trashed in the Grokster case. The Supreme court needs to be reigned in. Or they are looking at triggereing a second American revolution.
Johnny, get your gun.
FYI: My second submission had more info. (Score:2, Insightful)
From the AP wire [newsday.com]: The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
From a legal perspective, that makes sense. Bittorrent has always been about just "large file distribution" and was initially pushed as an alternative for downloading movie trailers, large Linux distributions, etc. It's gotten a fair amount of traction among a great deal of media sites as a fantastic way for distributing their work. It just so happens that it can be used for illegal purposes, like other technology.
That's a far cry from some p2p software's claims of "Find any song, any movie, any show, in seconds!" Bittorrent was introduced as a means for downloading big files. Plenty of other p2p software was introduced almost explicitly for downloading copyrighted material, and advertised as such.
So while the ruling initially sounds like a blow to p2p software, the wording shows that it's simply a blow to software made and distributed expressly for infringing copyrights. I can understand how "if you're encouraging copyright infringement with your software you're just as guilty" can lead to unanimous agreement.
RTFA, the sky is not falling (Score:4, Insightful)
So unless you advertise that your service is useful for infringement OR you take steps to intentionally allow for infringement then this ruling doesn't affect you. That won't stop chicken little from posting that an FTP ban is around the corner though.
Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't this work for EVERYTHING? (Score:1, Insightful)
What does the court have to say for weapons (used by police, for example) which every year kill thousands of people in the USA alone? Oh, wait, human rights are not even close to be as important as copyright... May the USA keep being the world's top weapon exporter, god bless America!
Hard Cases Make Bad Law (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm waiting to see the decision, but from the sound of it the Court did about as well as I could hope: rather than address the technology point, they addressed the business model. For now, it seems, Bram Cohen [bittorrent.com] is safe.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
I hate to extend things, however, couldn't a similar extention be applied to almost anything? Let's try firearms...
How does this sound.....
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to DO BODILY HARM
You could replace almost ANYTHING. I think they have set a VERY POOR precedent. All IMHO of course...
MM
Makes sense, pretty much (Score:5, Insightful)
If I sell lock picking devices and say: "makes it so easy to get back into your house or car when you've locked the keys inside," I'd expect protection from lawsuits.
At the same time, this makes the legal environment that technology producers have to deal with more unfriendly. Companies are going to start including DMA when they otherwise might not have, just to make sure they duck lawsuits. Copyright is good. But technology is more important than copyright. I don't like the idea of effectively suppressing technology to protect content producers.
Well, hopefully the chilling effect won't be that huge. Hopefully only egregious cases like Grokster will be seen in the courts. I'm holding my breath.
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be fantastic because it would clearly demonstrate that a produce (like a gun) that is made and sold legally, and is done so by an industry that falls all over itself to stress the safe and legal use of its products, would be finally free from frivalous lawsuits. The court seems to be acting pretty rational lately, and most higher courts have consistently found that the makers aren't liable for mis-use (just like Ford isn't liable for criminals using their vehicles as bank robbery getaway cars). The difference, with Grokster, is the actual promotion of the service as a way to violate copyrights.
Unanimous Disaster (Score:2, Insightful)
The abuse that will arise from this precedent will force Congress to pass laws to clarify copyright infringement, and I fear that they will be unduly influenced by corporate interests such as RIAA and MPAA, so the new laws will only reinforce draconian interpretations such as the one the Supreme Court has just made.
When will this madness cease?
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. The Supremes may be tech-illiterate, but the GPL is a legal document, not a technical one. I'm sure people with the level of legal experience on the Supreme Court are capable of understanding both the GPL itself and its implications
This proves without a doubt, Copyright is welfare. (Score:1, Insightful)
Face it, corporate welfare is more important than progress.
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason being is because the justices of the Supreme Court (well some of them) don't judge on the basis of the constitutional text alone. The Constitution says nothing about Fair Use, filesharing, computers, the internet, or p2p. What they decide on is part constitution and part existing culture and similar law in otehr countries. When the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for minors, one of the points made was that no other developed country allowed the death penalty for minors.
Direct contradiction of previous rulings are the norm. In it's history, the Supreme Court first upheld segregation (Seperate but Equal) and then struck it down (Brown vs. Board of Ed). The lawyers for the Brown side of the case didn't argue on the basis of the constitution or whether or not the Equal side of Seperate but Equal was being fulfilled (which it wasn't), but on the basis of the inethicality of segregation.
And finally, this case doesn't direct contradict a previous ruling (unless your referening someting other than the Betamax decision). In Betamax, the Court ruled that a device (or it's creators) isn't liable for copyright infringement if it has substantial noningringing use under the doctrine of Fair Use. It set a litmus test under which, if something is found to be primarily working within Fair Use, it is not liable for a non-Fair Use infringement, but if it is found to be primarily used to infringe copyright, it is liable. Using this litmus test, the Supreme Court found Grokster to fail.
Re:This supreme court (Score:4, Insightful)
This state of affairs has been the case for many years. The ruling was a reaffirmation of the status quo. If you live in a state, city or county that can take land without review, be worried. I live in TN. All eminent domain attempts are subject to a jury trial. It is different from place to place.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thus Proving the Incompetence... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt lots of people will jump to tell me about how guns are different and how responsible gun manufacturers are and whatnot, to which I will respond: "Bullshit". The black market in guns (internationally, as well as just in the US) is not fuelled soley by theft from warehouses.
Bittorrent is safe (Score:3, Insightful)
To use an analogy: I can sell guns. I just can't sell them with a slogan like "Number 1 tool for killing your ex-wife!" And I can't sell a P2P app named "Most efficient piracy software for pr0n and anime!" But the technology is safe.
This is good because it means The Supreme Court found a way to see through the jerks who are abusing this stuff without stifling innovation.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
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.
In short, this is a limited legal victory for the P2P community.
More importantly, it's a good practical step for the P2P community. If these decisions remain long, drawn-out, and in dire need of follow-up cases and mounting legal fees, then perhaps the AAs will decide that this battle isn't worth fighting. They've already made some recent noise about starting their own P2P services.
- David Stein
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it seems like this precedent would only apply if I sold guns with the advertising slogan "Kill your neighbor and loot their corpse with Burke brand firearms!" Versus advertising their use in hunting or self-defense, both legal uses of guns.
Or let's say I sold crowbars (with carbon-fiber grip to match my high-quality pistol grips; buy a matching set, makes a great gift!) with all of the bullet points related to how useful they are for breaking into cars and homes when the owner isn't around. If I claim my crowbars are vastly superior for B&E than any competing crowbar, would it be outrageous to claim that I expect that crowbar to be used for nefarious purposes despite all the legal uses for crowbars?
If that's the difference, then I can't say I find this decision alarming. Grokster advertised their ability to find illegal song downloads. So unlike any other file transfer method which is simply used for illegal transfers, Grokster actually made this one of the main selling points of their product. This defeats the usually quite valid argument that P2P is just a tool with legal and illegal uses -- Grokster decided that their marketing should focus on the illegal.
This kinda strikes me as similar to the situation in, say, head shops. Your glass "tobacco pipe" has plenty of legal uses, and thus they can sell it to you just fine. Mentioning the illegal uses is going to land either you, the customer, or especially you, the store in a heap of trouble.
All of which is to say that I'm not even sure that this case is establishing a precedent that didn't already exist.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only if they Promote Killing People with it .. (Score:3, Insightful)
not only Hollywood. Videogame makers, too!
Grand Theft Auto, anyone?
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The courts have faield the peopel again! (Score:3, Insightful)
ok went a little far with the dead body analogy.
Great exhibition of censorship, moderator. (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't change the betamax ruling really (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
no, no, no!
Here's the problem. The Supremes didn't say "Grokster's advertising practice promotes the act of copyright infringement and any and all promotional materials and advertisements that do so are illegal." they said "making a piece of software that's marketed as a vehicle for copyright infringement is illegal."
The reason that's important is that a legal interpretation of some borderline ad-campaign could make X-brand software illegal (instead of making the company change the advertisement, pay a fine, etc).
The software and the advertisement are not the problem, the infringement is (although, seperately, the promotion itself is possibly illegal).
This ruling's reasoning is not far from "My kid played GTA and shot a cop, it's partly the game publisher's fault." No, it's not. It's the (hypothetical) kid's fault...you know, the one who actually did something wrong? I don't know what they're smoking in the court these days, but it must be good.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think they weaseled out of anything this time. By framing it as "the P2P question" and complaining about "weaseling", you are suggesting that you want either a unanimous "yes, any P2P is fine, even if it blatently encourages infringing uses" or a unanimous "no, P2P is horrible, even for solely legal uses". Neither is okay: yes to all P2P is bad because, even if "music should be free, etc...", copyright law still exists; no to all P2P is bad because it gets rid of legitimate uses like torrenting Knoppix ISO's. They came up with the best possible outcome, which is a compromise, stating that pitching software as primarily a way to infringe copyright is not okay. This is good. You shouldn't be encouraging the Supreme Court to make extreme decisions just to avoid "weaseling"!
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I stand by my position. Bittorent is screwed.
1) Grokster shuts down.
2) Music and movies sharing moves over to the torrent
3) Nobody acts to stop the illegal trading.
4) "Not stopping" will be interpreted as "Promoting"
5) Bye-bye bittorent.
12-18 months. RIAA/MPAA has bought too much legislation to let technology or freedom and customers continue to erode their profit margins.
So now it's illegal to discuss illegal activity? (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's make a case study of eMule. If someone -- not an original eMule developer -- posts a message linking to the eMule source, saying "you can share files for free on this network, potentially including copyrighted material," are they now liable? It hardly seems that they should be, and yet Grokster's promotional campaign hardly extended past this level.
More dangerously, can this argument be extended to other areas of traditionally protected speech, like, for instance, security researchers trading information and exploits that could potentially be used to cause damage to computer systems?
Near Beer (Score:3, Insightful)
Like prohibition this ruling will be just as effective. Oh, well. America already has two million people in jail. [bbc.co.uk] Why not throw a few million more behind bars? We aren't the worst, but it's nothing to be proud of. [straightdope.com]
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
so, let's get this straight:
in the united states, it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal.
by comparision, a device that may or may not be designed for, but is certainly capable of, infringing copyright is deemed illegal. the manufacturers at least attempt the pretense of proposing legal uses for the technology and make a somewhat-better-than-marginal case for its legit use. this is not fine or legal.
question for the supreme court: do you really believe the the copyright of the bay city rollers first album is more deserving of legal protection than a human life?
Prostitution : it's all about how you promote it (Score:3, Insightful)
So, this is the difference between "escort/massage" and "whore"?
So, nothing new under the sun, essentially.
Sad time to be an American (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Innovation and development of Internet products in America has been stifled, and the future of such products thrown into doubt by the Supreme Courts decisions. Why develop a better Bit Torrent (or whatever) in this country, when you can now be taken to court by very deep pocketed companies who have nothing better to do that sue you into bankruptcy, based on this ruling?
2. The Supreme Court has also managed to further protect the bacon by making it so that cops can't be sued based on how poorly they enforce, or fail to protect people with restraining orders. So, for existence, your sister gets a restraining order against her ex-husband, and as she's on the phone calling for help, as the cops haven't responded to her first two calls, her ex shoots her.
Well... You can no longer blame the cops for this, which IMHO makes restraining orders completely useless. If there's no ramifications to them when they don't enforce these orders, what's the point in having them? There's now 0 incentive for cops to drop their donuts and do their duty, when it comes to victims of stalking and such. What are you going to do about it? Can't sue them into doing their job... Might as well buy a gun and protect yourself if you're in such a position, as there's no guarantee that a restraining order will help in any way.
Of course, if you're rich, and have the influence to affect future police funding, and/or influence public opinion, you're almost guaranteed that the cops will be very vigilant in protecting you. It's the average person who loses out here.
3. Cable companies no longer have to share their lines. On one hand this may mean more services from them for slightly less money. On the more realistic side, it means less options for you, the consumer, if the cable company decides to go the other way and raise your rates. Ain't it funny how so many of the decisions since Bush took office favor big business, and lock out the little guys?
4. Reporters can no longer protect their sources due to anotehr ruling today. They can, but they'll face jail time. In the long run this'll mean less people will come forward with info on wrongdoing's, which means big money gets away with more illegal activities....
5. And finally, let's not forget last weeks shit ruling wherein Walmart, Target, and any other retailer now can, or at least has the potential to take your house and land away from your in order to build more stores, in order to make themselves richer.
Yes, you'll be compensated if this happens, but that does nothing to help those who don't want to be displaced. It also means that any compensation received is at a government-set level. The same government who gives all kinds of tax breaks an incentives to such business's to get them to move into your neighborhood in the 1st place.
Seriously... Dickhead Bush and his money-mongering ilk are taking away our freedoms and liberties, not to mention our loved ones via his vendetta against Iraq, while he and his cronies grow fatter and richer.
I'm not one to really point fingers and go on about politics, but America is quickly losing everything that made us a superpower. At this rate, we will soon have a very rich, ruling elite, while the average person lives in rented propertys supporting them. Meanwhile tomorrows technological advances, and the money and power that goes with such things, will be coming from places such as China and India, which coincidentally are becoming superpowers due to all the money and business we're giving them.
In essence, we are funding our own demise, while the Bush's, and the Walmarts of the world kick back and fund more laws which limit our freedoms, while expanding their interests. Sad times indeed...
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Hum. I seem to think that the exact opposite could be true. Media Companies will sue all P2P software makers saying that the program promotes piracy the day the service is released. There's no way most of these software producers can defend themselves, and will be crushed one by one in the face of mounting lawsuits.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
Charlie
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this? In the United States, its legal to grow and smoke a plant that is known to cause cancer and kill you, but its illegal to grow and smoke a plant that can be used to relieve the pain from the cancer caused by the legal plant mentioned above.
Its all about big business. Weapons and defense is big business. File sharing apps are not. Tobacco and drug companies are big business.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly that the point of whether the product is promoted one way or another is irrelevant. What is pertinent is that Grokster itself did not download any copyrighted material or found to be guilty of anything except the tangential copyright infringement of their users.
It shouldn't matter if they told their users to commit copyright infringement using their product. It shouldn't matter that they *encouraged* users to commit copyright infringement using their product. They, in fact, did not commit the crime, the user downloading the copyrighted material did.
Unless, of course, encouraging others to commit a crime is itself a crime. Something, of course, they were not on trial for to begin with, but which also stinks of a worse problem regarding First Amendment rights.
C
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently yes, it is. And the reason is simple... it was recognized by our founders that it is essential to a democracy for the citizenry to be able to, if need be, defend themselves fromt he government.
That means that it is reasonable, as a law abiding citizen, to desire the means to have lethal force available in your defense.
Workaround available soon (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Add code to detect and block industry-marked pirated items, e.g. watermark-detection etc.
3) Market it as a Linux distribution tool
4) PROFIT off of the advertising
Meanwhile, others, acting independently, write a makefile modification to disable the watermark-detection. Overseas distrubitors give away precompiled binaries.
To protect it's legal stance, step 5 may be necessary:
5) file lawsuits against overseas vendors, knowing good and well the default judgement you get will be unenforceable
The bottom line:
This ruling won't kill off P2P software, it will only change the way in which it is distributed.
Wink-wink-nudge-nudge-know-what-I-mean.
Re:What was interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
the P2P developers problem was that while they did come up with legal uses the perception of them was that they did that only for their court case
so , let's get this straight:
Yes, lets.
in the united states , it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal.
Yes. That statement is correct. I can purchase ammunition that is made with the sole purpose of defeating body armor. Since body armor is also legal, it is possible, but not probable, that someone may wear body armor while committing a crime that would warrant the use of deadly force to stop. The ability of citizens to purchase this ammunition allows them to protect themselves. If you use the above mentioned ammunition to kill a law enforcement officer while committing a crime, you will most likely get a death sentence.
by comparision, a device that may or may not be designed for, but is certainly capable of, infringing copyright is deemed illegal. the manufacturers at least attempt the pretense of proposing legal uses for the technology and make a somewhat-better-than-marginal case for its legit use. this is not fine or legal.
This statement is not correct. What the supreme court has said is that if you create something that CAN be used in the commission of a crime, and then ENCOURAGE its users to commit crimes with it, you may be held liable.
question for the supreme court: do you really believe the the copyright of the bay city rollers first album is more deserving of legal protection than a human life?
I can't answer for them, but for me, both victims of violent crimes and copyrights both need to be protected.
That said, copyright law is in serious need of revision. Apparently the government has lost sight of the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
precisely... because it's not their job to make the law... just to be the final arbiter on how the law as it stands actually should be interpreted.
The more things change... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Downtime by Law"
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/ [suck.com]
My favorite quote (even as it makes me cringe): "But the blind narcissism that leads geeks to confuse 'can be done' with 'will be allowed' is disastrously naive."
Read the concurring opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
[1] Notably, they cite Linux.
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
But my point is that it's not all about business. There's some insane prejudice involved also.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I always found this attitude funny. As a former member of the military, let me fill you in on something. If it comes down to you against the US military, the ammo you use is not going to make a difference. Luckily, despite what the bunker-building whackos will tell you, the military is made up of your relatives and neighbors, not bloodthirsty robots.
If you are worried about the direction the government is heading and wish to protect yourself, you are far better off becoming active in politics (like voting) than collecting weapons.
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not quite right. The Court has always resolved cases by ruling on the most limited basis available. For instance, if a case can be dismissed either by an in-depth review of the First Amendment or by relying on a procedural legal error, it always relies on the latter.
This is different than issuing the most limited ruling possible. Every single case can be resolved on case-specific factors: "We find this way only because the activity occurred on a Wednesday, and the plaintiff was wearing red socks, and the defendant's first name is Homer. We decline to extend this ruling to any other combination of factors."
The Court shouldn't be doing this. This is the highest court in the land - it shouldn't waste time resolving questions that apply solely to the case at bar. When it rules, it creates precedent on which lower courts rely to dispose of similar cases. That is its job.
And this is why this decision is pointless. The ruling: "If you're going to create a P2P company, don't promote it for the purpose of violating copyright." Company response: "OK, we won't. Now are we legally in the clear?" This question is still open.
- David Stein
No Bells Tolling Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Important note: It was a 9-0 decision. This is (probably) a good thing -- it means that the overall decision was WAY toned down. When the decisions are 5-4, that means that the extremists of one side or the other won out through strength of numbers. When it's 9-0, it means the folks on both sides came to some kind of consensus.
From the decision: "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, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."
Anyway, the decision more or less only strikes against programs that are designed with violation of copyright laws as their primary purpose: case in point, Aimster, who implemented an encryption algorithm in their service solely for deniability reasons, and then got sued for it.
So how on earth do you prove that a device was distributed with the intention to infringe copyright? iPods, for example, come with a little sticker that says "please don't use me to steal music." In fact, because of the success of iTunes Music Store, it seems plausible that Apple, iPods, and other digital music players are almost definitely safe. Do people infringe with iPods? Of course. Does Apple know about it? Of course. But did they create the iPod to help people infringe? Nope, they created it to work with legal music.
BitTorrent, too, is safe. It was marketed primarily as a system for shuffling around large files in a more efficient manner. Even NASA uses BitTorrent to distribute their World Wind program. So, with BitTorrent, does infringement happen? Yes. Does Bram Cohen know about it? Of course. But did he write BitTorrent specifically for piracy? Nope, or at least, unprovable. So BT is safe too.
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought marijuana was big business too.
Actually, it's not, because BigPharma can't patent it.
If that were the case, we'd be winning in Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Although that doesn't mention sound recordings or some other post late-1700s inventions, the intent is clear and has been applied as such. The biggest issue is "limited time" since Congress keeps extending copyright via the Disney laws. I hope the Supremes do address that someday. However, our Founders most certainly did intend for the United States to grant copyright and patent protections, from Day One.
Larry
Copyright more important than lives (Score:3, Insightful)
So, could we expect Supreme Court to ban guns, even if it has its "legal" uses? I don't think so. Too much money involved, too many people sold their souls already.
People laugh at me when i say that we're all just slaves, and are living in slavery. They laugh, and then bleeth about new rules and laws being passed every day, and yet they think they are "free".
The only freedom that matters is the freedom to be LEFT ALONE.
Quite possibly, only few very rich people (and tribes which we haven't found yet) have that freedom...
My thoughts: the bad and the good (Score:4, Insightful)
The first concurrence, Ginsburg's (page 30 of the above file), sounded pretty dangerous to me. It lists over a page of evidence for non-infringing uses (pages 34-35) and then immediately dismisses at all without considering it. It doesn't even talk of the dangers to new technologies. But the last paragraph is the scariest. "If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM... the Court... should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony's product distribution holding. Now, IANAL at all, but that sounds pretty bad.
The second concurrence (page 38), also by three judges, is a lot nicer to me. Pages 42 and 44 have long lists of non-infringing uses including books, Linux software, and things licensed under Creative Commons. It even says that Grokster is protected by the Sony standard. It goes on to talk about how the Sony standard has been a fairly good one. It talks of how both non-infringing uses of Grokster and use of legal programs (like iTunes) will grow. It's still a concurring opinion, but the tone is much more mindful of protecting technology and looking forward to the future, a view that was missing from the first concurrence.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often thought the opposite of this...and hence a main reason pot hasn't been legalized. How would a big company make money and the govt get taxes on a plant, that anyone could grow themselves in their backyard if legalized?
Re:What was interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a cup of coffee?
The court could not have ruled otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing human beings in a very few circumstances, is permitted by law -- most notably self-defense. There have been many [student.oulu.fi] cases [nbc4.tv] of criminals wearing body armor.
In the courts opinion, it is reasonable to think that a citizen may have a legitimate usage for armor-piercing bullets. If a ammo manufacturer advertized their bullets as being "cop-killers" then they would be more analogous to the people who distribute a p2p system with the advertizing of "find any song, movie, show etc."
You're arguing about gun-control in general, which is actually counter to what you're (I think) advocating. The same defense that keeps guns legal -- there is in certain circumstances a legal reason to have a gun -- is the same arguement that will protect p2p as a whole. There IS a set of circumstances in which p2p can be legally justified, and thus the whole technology cannot and will not be banned. Just as legally, there ARE restrictions on how guns can be used, there are going to be legal restrictions on how p2p can be used.
Do I agree with this p2p ruling? Not really, I don't personally support the current copyright law, but as a member of the Supreme Court, I'll answer your question. We don't value anything more than individual liberty, because life without liberty is an abhorrent concept. We ruled against people promoting breaking the law, and not against p2p. How else COULD we have ruled?
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
"...Second, neither respondent attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated that failure as irrelevant because respondents lacked an independent duty to monitor their users. activity, this evidence underscores their intentional facilitation of their users' infringement..."
That's the second bit, but the three points they rattle off are (in a nutshell):
For me, those are extremely weak justifications for the dcision, but there's more.
"...A group of copyright holders (MGM for short, but including motion picture studios, recording companies, songwriters, and music publishers) sued Grokster and StreamCast for their users' copyright infringements, alleging that they knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U. S. C. 101 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. II)..."
Ooookay...I guess that means that I can sue pretty much anyone for selling pretty much anything that can be used for illegal purposes, if I know that that particular thing is regularly used that way. Sudafed is commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamines, for example. Since I know that methamphetamine manufacture is illegal, but Sudafed continues to be sold (with its' manufacturer's knowledge of the same), I can sue them for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance. The logic is the same, and it seems ridiculous to me in both instances.
Even if I could show a record of past methamphetamine manufacture from Sudafed, and even if I could show that pharmaceutical companies were specifically not tracking purchases of their products, and even if I could show that they derived increased revenue from increased use of Sudafed, I doubt the Supreme Court would show much interest in my case.
"...MGM commissioned a statistician to conduct a systematic search, and his study showed that nearly 90% of the files available for download on the FastTrack system were copyrighted works...
What's the magic number for substantial non-infringing use? How does the amount of objectionable material on the network make a difference? Is Apache illegal? IIS? VSFTPD? Should people writing web servers take steps to make sure they don't target users who run warez sites? Should they build in functionality that lets them actively monitor what files are being served from those servers?
"...From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance.6 App. 559-563, 808-816, 939-954. And MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software..."
Okay...MGM told them that there were 8 million Copyrighted files out there. And? What is Grokster supposed to do about that, exactly? Place PSA-style ads that say "Sharing copyrighted files is wrong and illegal."...how does that help stop infringement?
Then, the opinion goes off on some tangled logic about the companies benefitting directly from infringement because more ads means more money, and more use means more ads, and more infringement (apparently *only* more infringement, as opposed to legitimate use) means more use. Even if the idea was "hey, people share lots of files...we could get a lot of ad revenue if people from napster use our software", the contribution to infringement is no greater (except for in Morpheus' "Top 4
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My thoughts: the bad and the good (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, concurrences tend to muddle the results a little, since we have 6 of the 9 justices expressing slightly different opinions about the matter, you could say that parts of the unanimous opinion only reflect 3/9ths of the court's opinion.
At any rate; the concurring opinions are good to read, but lower courts only have to follow the "main" opinion.
Re:Sad time to be an American (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling had issue with the intent of the developers, not the technology. The development showed an intent to distribute protected media. If Henry Ford first introduced the "car" as a device for running over pedestrians, it wouldn't have been legal either.
This may come to a shock to you, but I don't think that people who make a career of law enforcement are in league with your sister's ex to allow her to be murdered so they can grab a Krispy Kreme. The REAL issue here is that the US is such a litigious society that no matter how well a civil servant performs their duties, someone will look for a payday by filing a law suit. What do they have to loose?
Hey, this might not be great for consumers, but let's be realistic. Why should a company invest in implementing and maintaining any infrastructure when it gives them no competetive advantage? Years ago, banks suied and won a case that allowed them to chanrge a $1.00 - $3.00 service fee for money withdrawn from their ATMs from rival bank card holders. Before that, a Bank may have 1,000 ATMs and had to share access to them, but not the cost of operating them, with their rivals. How is this fair?
So another way to say this is, "Reporters now face possible jail time for protecting sources who are suspected of committing a crime". Hey, this makes sense to me. Since a reporter is neither judge nor jury, why should they be able to decide who is guilty or inocent of wrong doing? That is for our legal system to decide. And since the media wields so much power, (witness Wendy's loosing millions on false claims that someone found a finger in their chili), it makes sense to provide a check and balance to that power.
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
In closing, you sir, are spinning lies. Way to go!
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad time to be an American (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no. It goes more like this: A municipality (like a city) may force people to sell private property at market rates for both public use (like a highway which has been a law for years) and now also private development (like to build a shopping center or stadium) if it will benefit the public at large by means such as improving the tax base. What this does is allows a city to take a low income urban area filled with rent houses and redevelop it into a new football stadium that will add millions in taxes over the years, without having to pay $250,000 an acer to a slum lord who'se been renting 1 br. appartments for $300 a week.
How is this different from what the grandparent post stated, except in degree? The government taking *any* property that disproportionately benifits a single other entity is outrageous. It doesn't make any difference whether the seized property came from a slum lord, or an elderly woman
"A city in Washington state removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years supposedly to expand a sewer plant, then sold the land to an auto dealership."
"A city in Kansas took a used-car lot and turned it over to the new-car dealer next door, who had failed in his efforts to buy the site from the previous owner."
There is already abuse of eminent domain. This is truly a dire ruling, and the grandparent post did not overstate this one issue.
Re:The court could not have ruled otherwise (Score:1, Insightful)
Seems like they forgot about that when they made the ruling last week about siezing land from the rightful owner when it would "benefit" the surrounding neighborhood.
Re:If that were the case, we'd be winning in Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big difference between being a nuisance against a foreign occupying power, when the people of that occupying power would really rather not be there at all, and winning a war against your own government, when said government's very existence is at stake. And despite all their efforts, the Iraqi insurgents aren't winning, because we're still there. A couple of thousand casualties a year is nothing to the military.
If the government of the U.S. were actually in any real danger from its citizenry, I guarantee that the government would pull out all the stops. It would have no problem bombing large sections of its own population into rubble if that's what it takes to stay in power. The grandparent poster is exactly correct: the citizenry hasn't got a chance without real military support.
If you don't believe me, then ask yourself what you can do as an armed citizen to protect yourself against a squadron of A-10s dropping bombs on you and shooting at you with their gatling guns. You've got nothing that can help you against that kind of firepower.
Re:If that were the case, we'd be winning in Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
Only an idiot would try to stare down something like that, but there's a much easier way to overcome all the Buck Rogers stuff: blow up their fuel supplies and transportation for same. Or go after the maintenance guys, etc. Read Sun Tzu some time -- hit 'em where they ain't.
The Iraqis are poor and relatively uneducated, but they are still causing big problems. Can you imagine what motivated, well-armed citizens of a rich country would do to an occupying force? You could nuke them, but that's about it.
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you don't promote it that way, then what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What was interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually they are both right. Hemp had many enemies for various economic reasons and when a possibility of inducing a prohibition-style hysteria was added into the mix the rest was inevietable. In addition to DuPoint and Hearst there were other powerful people who had stakes in destroying the hemp industry. On the other hand the industry's proponents were mostly farmers and small time processed hemp products operations. Unlike alcohol, the hemp manufacturers did not have competing robber-barron families on their side and therefore they did not get "rehabilitated" with vast illegal fortunes ala the Kennedy and Seagrams dynasties.
Drug laws have absolutely nothing to do with addictions and social impact of dangerous substances and everything to do with power, money and control of populations by the ruling elites. If the concerns about drug use were truly socially motivated they would be confined to the domain of medicine and not law enforcement. As it is, the "war on drugs" serves beautifully as a mechanism to enrich the drug lords, awesomely empower vast police aparatus complete with wholesale destruction of citizen rights and to vastly enrich the associated securocracy industrial complex.
The people who would be the most outraged by drugs returning to the domain of medical profession are ... the drug lords, police, power hungry politicians, fundamentalist warmongers of various religions and the private prison industry. This fact alone should tell anybody sane everything they need to know about this issue.
The "war on drugs" -- awesomely named in an Orwellian Newspeak -- is so successful a totalitarian tool that new kinds of "war on inanimate things and abstract concepts" are being put into action. Witness "war on terror" complete with Gulags, torture centers, "extraordinary renditions", indefinite detention without trial based on a whim of a CIA opeartive, etc.