Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF 194

Posted by Hemos from the but-of-course dept.
Tractorjector writes "Mad Penguin has published part two of their MGM vs Grokster interview series (the first part was featured on Slashdot on 2005-06-27). This time the focus is on EFF Director Shari Steele. A very compelling (and somewhat concerning) interview."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF More

Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF

Comments Filter:

  • Typo? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xhorder ( 232326 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:43AM (#12979835)
    Concerning or Disconcerting?

    • Re:Typo? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:56AM (#12979900)
      Concerning:

      (1) that causes anxiety or uneasyness (this EFF article is concerning)

      (2) to engage the attention of (this EFF article is still concerning)

      (2) to be interesting (this EFF article keeps on being concerning)

      On the other hand:

      Disconcerting:

      (1) Upsetting, embarassing (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, apart to Microsoft perhaps)

      (2) Frustrating (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, even for Microsoft)

      So, no, no typo there...

      • Re:Typo? (Score:4, Informative)

        by xhorder ( 232326 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:16PM (#12980003)
        But here it is being used as an adjective, and concerning is not an adjective...

        After a quick google search:
        The Oxford English Dictionary has a limited amount of evidence for concerning as an adjective meaning 'causing concern; worrying; important; weighty'. Their first example is from 1649, and the most recent is from 1834; it's marked "archaic."

        reduce the phrase to "a very concerning interview", and is just sounds wrong... /end of pedatic discussion

    • Not Disconcerting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @04:27PM (#12981194) Homepage Journal
      The decision (so far) doesn't bother me much in the Grokster case. What it seems to say is that it's OK to distribute Technology, but it's not OK to encourage copyright infringement.

      This may, overall, be good.

      The Madpenguin interview [madpenguin.org] TFA starts by pointing out a study that indicates Copyright infringement may be good for Microsoft [hbs.edu].

      .... We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate. The model shows that Microsoft can use piracy as an effective tool to price discriminate, and that piracy may even result in higher profits to Microsoft!....
      I think that this probably can be extended to the MPAA, RIAA and friends -- in fact, there's the infamous stats that showed a CD buying spree as napster's fortunes rose, and the popping almost the week that napster got shut down.

      If you want to hurt the copyright cartels, obviously the best thing to do is discourage your friends from comitting copyright infringement and encourage them to by local and independently sourced music. and/or music or software that is under an open license. This also tends to result in more money staying in the local economy (good for you in the long run).

      Just like Linux has forced Microsoft to produce better software, lower their pricing and even give at least lip service to 'open' (cough cough) standards, if your friends start ignoring content that is copy protected and going for stuff with permissive customer rights, then those companies are going to have to respond in kind to keep their market share.

      What I liked about grokster was the peer-to-peer distribution network. What I disliked about it is that they openly encouraged copyright violation that effectively supported the mega-corps. This Supreme Court decision seems to open up the possibility of a peer to peer company that actually promotes independent music over the mass market pablum.

  • The whole thing is very clear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:48AM (#12979854)
    The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

    Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files. Those files can be anything, but one major use of bitorrent is to ease the spread of Linux distributions and other Open Source binaries.

    Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

    I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers, but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:15PM (#12979994)
      Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

      Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign? Also, does it just apply to software, or to hardware also, e.g. my PVR?

      • Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign?

        Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal. Apple is very clear that the goal is to give you control of your own playlist, not to aid piracy. Their packaging and advertising is full of statements like "iTunes is licensed for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials or materials the user is legally permitted to reproduce. The music tracks shown are for demonstration purposes only."

        • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:4, Informative)

          by digidave ( 259925 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:22PM (#12980658)
          "Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal"

          I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.
          • I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

            That "Betamax ruling" was the US Supreme Court interpreting federal law to say "there's no rule against time-shifting, and it should be allowed."

            And since Congress hasn't succeeding in baring the practice, it's legal. Sterling legal.

          • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Informative)

            by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:20PM (#12980922) Homepage
            I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

            And even that is a dubious interpretation. The supreme court pretty much said:
            (1) Timeshifting is legal under fair use
            (2) The use of timeshifting is substantial
            (3) Substantial non-infringing use is enough

            The decision pretty clearly described the process of building a video library as infringing, I don't recall personal copying being discussed much at all. But extending the decision, private copying is probably legal because of timeshifting, the recipients are responsible for handling that copy in a non-infringing way.

            Also note that back then, they were dealing with free/ad-based OTA signals. It is questionable if private copying would be legal if this means that the recipient is avoiding paying subscription/PPV fees. Under the redefinition of "commercial gain" to also include access to other copyrighted works, two buddies taping shows from each other's subscription channels might be considered commercial. That in itself does not make it illegal, but it is one of the four factors deciding if something is fair use or not. Obviously, commercial counts against it.

            Kjella

            • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:56PM (#12982261) Homepage
              The decision pretty clearly described the process of building a video library as infringing

              Were you reading a ruling written by the MPAA or something? Chukle.

              The ruling I read, the one written by the US Spureme Court, said no such thing. They certainly stated that building tape libraries was common, but they never said anything either way about the legal status of that activity. There merely said that time shifting is an example of fair us, and that that mean VCRs had a legitimate purpose and that Sony was not liable. That and ended the case right there.

              questionable if private copying would be legal if this means that the recipient is avoiding paying subscription/PPV fees

              It's kinda hard to tape something if you don't pay the fee to have it send and they don't send it. So assuming you have paid to receive PPV or whatever then there's no reason taping it should be treated any differently than taping anyhing else.

              Under the redefinition of "commercial gain" to also include access to other copyrighted works, two buddies taping shows from each other's subscription channels might be considered commercial.

              Yes, the redefinition in law was rather rediculous. I'm sure it was a trojan horse planted by the publishing industry lawyers that actually wrote the text of the bill, and that in general the legislators who voted it into law had no idea of the actual impact. The good old "we're not changing the law, we're just clarifying what what is already criminal" manuver. Essentially anyone who has ever uploaded so much as a singe file and downloaded so much as a single file on P2P is technically guilty of criminal infringment and suject to a year in prison. Ten uploads (again covering virtually everyone who has ever used P2P) is a felon subject to FIVE years in prison. If this law were actually to be actually enforced we'd need to build more than ten times as many prisons to hold a substantial portion of the entire population. The entire country would collapse overnight.

              So yes, giving out your tapes to other people may in some cases raise legal issues, however that is entirely separate from the legality of the taping itself.

              -

          • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Informative)

            by AeroIllini ( 726211 ) <aeroillini@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday July 04, 2005 @05:36PM (#12981447)
            "Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal"

            I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

            Not true. The Betamax case was certainly the first time it was ruled on, but it has since been codified into law by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which added Chapter 10 to U.S. Title 17. Check out Section 1008, "Prohibition on certain infringement actions [cornell.edu]":

            No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. (Emphasis mine.)


            Basically, if your copy is for non-commercial, non-distributive, personal use, then it's not infringement.

            Now I'd like to see that language extended to all forms of copyrightable media, including television shows, movies, books, magazines, newspapers, speeches, even prints/reproductions of artwork and sculpture. I should be able to do anything I want with things I own a copy of, as long as the use is non-commercial and non-distributive (i.e., I can't make money off it, and I can't give it to anyone else).

      • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

        by Titusdot Groan ( 468949 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:53PM (#12980520) Journal
        Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign?

        No. Since 'Rip' pretty explicitly means you have the CD to burn from ... ripping is fair use, not a breech of copyright.

        Also, does it just apply to software, or to hardware also, e.g. my PVR? No, again because a PVR records for time shifting purposes which is fair use.

    • You have the right idea, but you seem to be buying in to some unfortunate memes that really should be scotched: "plausible deniability", "promoting illegal actions", "get away with aiding mass piracy"... Bittorrent is promoting legal actions, it's aiding the distribution of software, it doesn't need to "deny" anything. The problem is that there's a limited amount of bandwidth, the solution is a Usenet-style store-and-forward distribution system.

      If Bittorrent had come first, and these systems had started out like Usenet as a way for people to share information (discussion boards, open source software, and so on) nobody at the EFF would dream of defending Grokster on the grounds that they're only making their money from "arms length" piracy, just like nobody sane would call an ISP a censor for refusing to carry alt.binaries.warez.

      There's nothing new about peer-to-peer networks. The Internet is a peer-to-peer network. Usenet, UUCP, Fidonet, peer-to-peer networking has been the nerve fibers of the community that slashdot is part of since long before the Internet has been available to carry its traffic.

      So it's a damn shame that Napster and its successors were created to take advantage of the limited anonymity of peer-to-peer networking rather than its bandwidth-accelerating capabilities... to uise the technology as a cut-out so they could make money from mass copyright violations rather than sharing legal material. Because they may have ended up poisoning the well for good, given the way even defenders of systems like Bittorrent are using this kind of language.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:16PM (#12980005)
      The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions. Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files.

      Hey, that's a great idea!

      Ok everybody, hear this: I am on a certain channel, on a certain IRC server, and I'm proposing to exchange Linux binaries (wink) via DCC CHAT. The distro I have here is called Linux Reloaded (nudge nudge), and it fits on a standard bootable DVD. I'll let you download Linux Reloaded if you can let me have GNU in the Shell (the "innocence" release). Leave me a message on this here board with your email addy and I'll let you know which IRC server/channel I'm on so we can exchange these insanely great, erhm, open-source softwares (get it? say no more, say no more *wink*).
    • The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

      No. The point of the ruling is that if a judge & jury think that you're trying to encourage illegal activity, you'll be responsible for it when it happens.

      BitTorrent gets buy because Brian DOESN'T encourage illegal use of bittorrent. He may not DISCOURAGE it, and he may even utilize his technology that way, but he doesn't beat a drum for folk to use BitTorrent for illegal file sharing.

      IMO, all that anyone who develops a file-sharing tool needs to do is to encourage LEGAL use of their tool. Such as, for example, encouraging and facilitating creative commons verification within the tool.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:56PM (#12980226) Homepage
      The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

      Perhaps more wise would be not to promote illegal actions at all...

      Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files.

      Bitorrent does not cause mass piracy or get away with anything. They provide a file distribution tool that servers a specific purpose.

      The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

      And how is this news?

      but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

      It's far simpler than this: don't promote illegal activities. Recruiting a team to rob a bank is just as criminal as robbing the bank.

      • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

        by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:12PM (#12980621)
        It is news because it now applies the "accessory", "contributory", and "accomplice" sort of legality to things on the internet.

        That hadn't happened before. It sets a precedent. Now people cannot simply claim "common carrier" or "there's no way to know" status every time someone sues them for their service becoming a bed of "infringement"...

        It wasn't as simple as the bank robbery recruiting activity. There are legitimate uses for P2P. The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal, even though they may not have been intended for such a purpose. Thankfully, they limited their scope to Grokster and Morpheus (iirc), and thereby not effectively "outlawing" P2P.

        BitTorrent has tons of infringing activities (you can google them for yourself.) The key isn't whether it CAUSES mass piracy, but that if it is DESIGNED and PROMOTED to cause piracy. Big difference. Read the ruling.

        This sort of misinformation is what is causing so much confusion about the ruling. Seriously, people. Read a little bit and don't rely on the evening news to give you the summary. EVERY news outlet got it WRONG in their broadcasts.

        • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

          by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles&dantian,org> on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:34PM (#12980704)
          The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal

          I think this would upset Microsoft. They know own [internetnews.com] groove [groove.net], a "collaboration tools" for work teams disconnected from their corporate network. Uses P2P inside the work team. I'm sure they could also share mp3s with it ;)

        • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

          by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @07:26PM (#12981914) Homepage
          It is news because it now applies the "accessory", "contributory", and "accomplice" sort of legality to things on the internet.

          Not really, there's not much of a difference between a real world accomplice and an online one.

          The key isn't whether it CAUSES mass piracy, but that if it is DESIGNED and PROMOTED to cause piracy. Big difference. Read the ruling.

          Exactly. Advertising Infringomatic 2000 w/ Wincash Gold plug in has always been a stupid idea. So has working HR for the mafia.

          EVERY news outlet got it WRONG in their broadcasts

          It pains me to say that Fox News nailed it. Point is that this ruling was completely nothing new. It made no change to the law of the land.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:12PM (#12980313)
      Plausible deniability may not be enough. It's far better not to promote illegal actions, period. Judges and courts aren't generally stupid, it's not a technology issue, it's a matter of intent.


      With grokster in particular, it was gross, not only did they encourage illegal actions, they bragged about it and used it as a selling point. EFF shouldn't defend these guys, I won't give them another dollar if they do.


      Bitorrent isn't in the line of fire yet but it very well could be. Attitudes need to change. How many large trackers have gone done because they had pirated torrents? They claimed to not be liable for what people uploaded but that didn't fly and it won't, they need to be responsive and take some precautions, simply saying don't upload pirate stuff, winking and then looking the otherway is not responsible enough. The search engine might need to be rethought as well. At some point, if (like I believe it is) most torrent traffic is pirated and companies start making requests for bitorrent to help them correct that and they don't take any precautions then they could be a target also.


      This is as much a cultural problem as it is anything else, I'd be wary if my company was trying to profit from it all though. If that's the plan I'd start crossing my T's and dotting my i's and make sure I was taking some precautions against piracy and I'd make damn sure that nobody in house was pirating stuff with the technology. That'll bury you when you're knowingly doing nothing about it.

    • Manners (Score:2, Interesting)

      by vrimj ( 750402 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:17PM (#12980345)
      There was an intersting exchange on Slate about Grokster. One of the points made it that the rule announced is basically a rule of etiquette. This seems a good analogy, and points out the limited effect.
      What will be intersting is when this ruling is put up against non-commerical products. Commerical speech is subject to a lower level of protection. Non-commerical speech is not as limited, and I don't know that applying this ruling to a non-commerical sitution would be more of a speech problem.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:33PM (#12980416) Homepage Journal
      Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

      You were correct up to this point. It disagrees with your point #1. The courts findings have to do with how you market your product, not how you design it.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:37PM (#12980436) Homepage
      I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers, but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

      Or, in the words of George Bernard Shaw:

      What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer?

      UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:51PM (#12980506) Homepage
      The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

      Plausible deniability means you can create doubt about whether or not you did it. If you argue for both legal and illegal uses, that is not plausible deniability. To completely shut up about illegal uses aren't plausible deniability, because then no promotion of illegal acts have occured. Basicly what they said was "Don't promote illegal acts. If you do, you can be sued. If you don't, and they still occur, you are probably protected by the Betamax shield."

      Kjella

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:39PM (#12981013)
      I agree completely. I wrote the same thing in this essay [kuro5hin.org] on Kuro5hin.

    • Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:2)

      by evilmousse ( 798341 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @04:49PM (#12981286) Journal

      so what about armor-peircing bullets? is the home defense against armored attackers realistic, or is it implicitly encouraging cop killing?

  • EFF is great! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tetrahedrassface ( 675645 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:50AM (#12979867) Journal
    We need to top piracy, but we should also encourage authors/songwriters/performers/composers, to do what the BBC did the other day.. Namely release a copyrighted work for personal use..

    Sure there were strings attached but when isn' there?

    I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..

    As a community we should shun copyright infgringement, but at the same time we should encourage the copyright holders to release their material for personal use..

    Thats how I do my stuff.. My songs are copyrighted, or CC, but they have "no profit" without permission clause.. You are free to have them as long as you don't sell them.. Its really really simple.

    Since I started posting my little songs up on the net I have contacted by BMI.. I am going to join, but only because they can help me if an artist took something i have written and recorded it/ changed it. etc and proffited without compensation or permision from me..

    I need the EFF to ensure that I have the right to make my stuff available. They fight the good fight for us honest little people.

    Long the the EFF!

    • Re:EFF is great! (Score:2)

      by tetrahedrassface ( 675645 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:01PM (#12979931) Journal
      Sorry for all the typos..im just passionate about this stuff..

    • Re:EFF is great! (Score:3, Funny)

      by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:46PM (#12980161)
      We need to top piracy

      Yeah, we should start stealing babies! That's much worse than "stealing" software and music. That would top piracy for sure!

    • Re:EFF is great! (Score:3, Informative)

      by ContractualObligatio ( 850987 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:06PM (#12980276)

      I don't understand what you need the EFF for in this case. You've always been free to give away your songs. The rule remains that as soon as you write something original, you have the copyright. While there are chargeable services around to help you establish said copyright, this is only to provide proof of copyright should it ever become a legal necessity to do so.

      As for what the BBC did, those works aren't copyright! Copyright on old Beethoven's symphonies ended a long time ago. The BBC Symphony Orchestra's performance is copyrighted, but seeing as I'm a Brit paying the BBC's license fee, I think it's perfectly correct they should be publically available.

      None of this addresses how an artist makes a living out by pursuing their art. You mention posting "little songs" - presumably you are not trying to make a full time living out of this? I respect the dedication of the pure artist (my login is testament to the fact that I've sold out to business get by, the obligatio part being that I had to give up partying and earn a living - ain't life a bitch?) and in particular the struggle it is to earn enough money to live on. For the EFF or anyone else to support businesses whose actual intent was to benefit from people breaking the law is ridiculous. So I don't have a problem with the recent ruling.

      You want to give your songs away for free? Fine. You want to earn a living out of music? Great - and you deserve all the help and respect that can be given. You want to write some P2P software so that people can communicate, share free songs and Linux distros etc? Fantastic.

      You want to benefit (get money/ friends/ contacts/ misguided respect/ whatever) from advertising a system with the intent and knowledge of infringing on other people's rights - well, you're basically being a selfish bastard at this point, aren't you? It's not as if Grokster has made any effort to support musicians, like providing a forum to sell music with a way to track what you've downloaded in order to pay the relevant artist. Anyone who's played in a band or watched someone try to set up an indie record label knows just how fucking hard it is to bring in the money to do so. If Grokster had some real decency, they'd have made a real effort to find out how to help all these kinds of people. Now as well as major labels always looking to keep the money for themselves, there's other bastards looking to make it impossible to get people to pay money in the first place.

      If you don't want to or can't afford to buy music - don't. Go see a local artist. Download material deliberately released for free by the artist or even record label. The fact that this is legal isn't particularly relevent. There's more good and free music available via the internet than you could ever get hold of before. Rip CD's from your friends - not legal, but a nice little grey area that acts as an effective self throttle against using the power of the internet to dodge your obligations. Just show some respect to artists, and with any luck it would also contribute to the financial starvation of the commercial shit clogging up the charts and atmosphere...

    • The EFF is a joke (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MushMouth ( 5650 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:07PM (#12980284) Homepage
      Grokster has such a great scam going. They build a piece of software, which they know darn is of questionable legality. They plan to profit in the millions on this software off they backs of copyright holders, see the internal memos. (have they offered anything to those who hold the copyrights both the RIAA people and the songwriters who have statutory mechanical royalties?). Then they get you schmucks to foot the bill for their legal defense. In the end the worse thing that happens is they go belly up fold the corp and the founders don't get to cash in when the company sells (I wonder what these guys are giving themselves for a salary.) Man I gots to get one of these schemes going.

    • Creative people aren't rare anymore (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Alwin Henseler ( 640539 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:08PM (#12980286)
      I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..

      No they don't have us in a stranglehold. Maybe they believe they do, or the public does, believing it is forced to buy certain items. But I think this may be just a result of history, and the role of copyrights. Basically, a game of numbers. How many people there are (world population), how many of those are creative spirits, and how well people are connected.

      Imagine a primitive world with only 5000 souls, where only 1 in 1000 is exceptionally gifted/smart/genius. Then you have only 5 of those to provide that world with new creative works, scientific breakthroughs and so on. The discovery/birth of another genius would be a major event. And in a primitive world, anything new could take a long time before it reaches remote corners of the world. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, makes a great loss for society. A copyright system that puts a lock on the works of those few, can make a huge difference in that world's development. I think that copyright as a concept is mostly based on the idea that creative spirits are a rare commodity.

      Fast forward to here and now. With a world population of 6 billion+, modern mass media, and a general high-tech base to start with, the picture isn't anything like the above. That same 1 in 1000 people would mean 6 million creative spirits in this world, and anything they come up with, reaches far corners of the world in no-time. Then a single genius isn't as important as it used to be. Rather, you have some sort of 'environment', where scientific knowledge and creative works move in certain directions. At some point in time, the next step/development will become 'obvious' (read: very likely), and then... somebody (one of those many gifted folks) will do it. If that specific individual wouldn't, somebody else would. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, doesn't make much difference to society.

      Copyright has a totally different meaning and effect in that situation (IMHO, something that is only about economics, and/or politics). Not to say that brilliant individuals don't matter anymore, but there's always enough of them to go round, copyright locks or not.

    • Help support the EFF [was:EFF is great!] (Score:2, Informative)

      by IrishMASMS ( 786650 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:05PM (#12980859) Homepage
      When supporting the EFF in words, how about with funding? There is theSummit 2005, on Thursday July 28, 2005 in Las Vegas...

      At the end of Black Hat [blackhat.com] and the beginning of DEFCON [defcon.org] this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON [defcon.org] & Black Hat [blackhat.com] speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.

      Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] with the sponsor covering event overhead.

      theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.

      The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.

      Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
      When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
      Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!

      For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
      http://www.dc702summit.org/home/ [dc702summit.org]

      Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation [hackajar.com], and by the members of DEFCON 702 [dc702.org].

      We all hope to see you there!

      (as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defco n/323.html [livejournal.com] ])

  • How to increase Linux penetration (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:51AM (#12979869)
    From TFA:

    We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate.

    I have an idea then: why don't they make Linux insanely expensive, put it on a CD with a small manual that has a shiny Tux hologram on it, require the user to read a long boring EULA and enter a very long serial number, then have the Linux box display a Teletubbies-like background and make it contact an activation server at www.kernel.org? That way, pirates will just jump on it, distribute it like there's no tomorrow on P2P, and Linux will eventually displace Windows.
    • That quote is BS, at lest in Thailand. Piracy is in the high 9x% (98.5 a few years ago), and Linux is huge there. Heck, my brother-in-law told me that he wants Linux because the Prime Minister uses it and says that Windows is old technology. You can't walk into a subway newsstand without seeing Linux for sale.
    • Some of these warezmongers are indeed that stupid. Hell, I bet MOST of them are that stupid.

      I have a "friend" who is a warezmonger. He tried to give me a copy of XP, but I told him I didn't use it. He tried to give me a copy of MSOffice and I have him the same answer. Ditto for Photoshop, Acrobat, and several other applications. Ditto for several hundred games.

      Finally, just as he was about to dismiss me as hopelessly moral, he offered me a copy of Redhat. I told him to go away, because I used Slackware at the time.

      "I can get you that too!"

  • Long term it's a good thing we last (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:55AM (#12979894)
    We need broad public, and congressional pressure .. not judicial rulings. Remember judicial rulings can be overruled by constitutional amendments and other means such as judge replacements etc.

    A long term, permanent solution requires informing and winning the public.

    • Re:Long term it's a good thing we last (Score:2)

      by westlake ( 615356 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @04:05PM (#12981113)
      We need broad public, and congressional pressure .. not judicial rulings.

      And just where is that to come from?

      The film and video industry alone directly employs 360,000 people, mostly in Los Angeles and New York. That excludes employment through independent contractors, support services and all distribution channels except the multiplex.Motion Picture and Video Industries [bls.gov]

      The industry is well organized and strongly positioned in the nation's cultural and financial capitals, red and blue states alike. But a politician doesn't need much encouragement to support a clean industry that provides jobs at all skill levels and generates billions in domestic and foreign sales.

      Remember judicial rulings can be overruled by constitutional amendments and other means such as judge replacements etc

      The decision in Grokster was unaminous and you'll not see anything better emerging from the House or Senate.

  • Not too concerned about this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:56AM (#12979897) Journal
    The article comes to false conclusions:

    We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate. The model shows that Microsoft can use piracy as an effective tool to price discriminate, and that piracy may even result in higher profits to Microsoft!


    This makes no sense. Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

    In fact, Linspire has been nervous about the Grokster case, because they are concerned that erosion of P2P could undermine their ability to distribute code via their one-click download service, called "CNR" for Click N Run. The same applies to lots of variations on Debian's apt-get solution.


    In what way to "CNR" ot apt-get foster piracy for commercial gain?

    I think the ruling is correct. If you deliberately set up a business that relies on copyright violation, then you deserve to get hauled through court.

    • Simple: Market share in developing markets (Score:2)

      by expro ( 597113 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:17PM (#12980006)

      How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

      Two words: market share. Get market share now, crack down later. Piracy is a thing which they publicly oppose and denounce, but if they are copying anyone's work for free, they would much rather have it be Windows than Linux.

    • Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS?

      It means that the people who are now stealing Windows, in five years, or ten, whenever they are better off and have their own assets at risk and their own wealth to protect and when the price of Windows is something they can afford, they will be familiar with Windows and be more likely to buy Windows than to switch to Linux.

      This has been a tremendously valuable tool for Microsoft over the years, in the US and abroad. Combined with their proprietary file formats it's helped them keep the market for competitors to Office down... someone who can't afford Office is a potential market for a $50 word processor, except that it's easier to "borrow" Office from the office... so there's no low-cost competition to Office any more and even free software has a rough ride.

      I suspect that's one reason they didn't put any effective copy protection in Windows prior to XP. Once they had the market penetration, they could go wild.

      I oppose piracy not because it harms big companies, but because it helps them.

      The same thing is true for music. There are some tremendous musicians out there doing amazing work, and promoting themselves through free music and listings on MP3blogs like 3hive. They're hurt by Grokster, because a huge chunk of their potential market is swallowed up by the P2P networks. I suspect that if the networks did go down, the labels would just find themselves facing a whole new threat from independants who are right now taking a bigger hit from P2P than the labels are.
      • Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

        Actually, looking back at the article, that quote was pretty tangential anyway and isn't impacted by the ruling. It's a "This is why free software developers oppose piracy" thing, which upon second reading I'm entirely in agreement with.

      • Re:Piracy promotes monopolies... (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:54PM (#12980810) Homepage
        so there's no low-cost competition to Office any more and even free software has a rough ride.

        In my experience, that is not true. Two years ago, sending out resumes in PDF led to several "wtf? send .doc" replies, now there are none (here in Norway). OpenOffice has made great headway, and is happening in many new installations. They will not replace their old system like that (and old office suites do their job), but when the next cycle occurs, it is always being evaluated. OpenOffice 2.0 may very well be the break to gain critical mass here.

        Kjella

    • Re:Not too concerned about this (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:24PM (#12980383)
      This makes no sense.

      It makes perfect sense. Even Steve Ballmer [ufl.edu] agrees with it.

      How does that contribute profit to MS?

      Two words:

      increased brainshare.

      You might well have asked "Why do companies spend millions of dollars each year advertising their products - how does that contribute profit to them?"

    • Re:Not too concerned about this (Score:2)

      by bfields ( 66644 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:51PM (#12980789) Homepage
      Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

      I agree, Microsoft doesn't want to sell at higher prices in poorer countries--the kind of "price discrimination" they want is the reverse, selling at *lower* prices in poorer countries.

      By enforcing copyright more or less depending on the wealth of the country, they effectively perform a kind of price discrimination, making it on average cheaper (in terms of sticker price and legal risk) to acquire a copy in a poor country than in a rich country. And they still do make *some* money in the poorer countries--governments and businesses that can afford legal copies, and that are susceptible to anti-piracy pressure, will still buy legal copies, especially since the country's existing install base (even if mostly illegal) will make it difficult for them to adopt anything other than Windows.

      --Bruce Fields

  • Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:58AM (#12979909)
    I'd agree that the OSS community does need to shun piracy. OTOH I think people take things that Richard Stallman says, that software should be free, and try to equate that with "they want to steal stuff." That M$ would profit from piracy I think has long been established. Accusations like this were made years ago concerning usage in Central America. It was believed that M$ had let a dependence on Windows grow then cried fowl on piracy. It's a very effective tactic that has been used for ages by other sordid groups. Now it seems to be the modus operondi in East Asia.

    • Re:Piracy (Score:3, Funny)

      by bobintetley ( 643462 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:18PM (#12980639)

      then cried fowl on piracy

      What? Like "Chicken!" or something?

    • Re:Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @03:18PM (#12980918) Homepage Journal
      OTOH I think people take things that Richard Stallman says, that software should be free, and try to equate that with "they want to steal stuff."

      That's not to hard to understand. If you really take his philosophy to heart, then you have to view any warez trading is merely "moral civil disobedience."

      The biggest difference between the Free Software and Open Source communities is that the first says "your software that you produce must be free", while the latter says "my software that I produce must be free."

      • Re:Piracy (Score:2)

        by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @06:15PM (#12981610)
        I'd agree. And I'm not the biggest supporter of RMS nor am I necessarily of the mind that all software should be free and no proprietary software should ever be installed on my computer. I use Linux and have for years, but I use MAC has my primary system now. But I got to choose Mac on its merits and that's where my feelings lie. I think there should be more choice and I think standards should be open. But I digress. I'd go further to say that RMS often hurts the community as a hole with his ideals but I think RMS represents an extreme.

  • Irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by cscalfani ( 222387 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:15PM (#12979993)
    Am I the only person on the planet who finds that the EFF's director's name Shari Steele (Share & Steal) is ironic?

  • Fundraiser fearmongering. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:23PM (#12980040) Journal
    The Grokster decision was Good.

    The ED of the EFF wants to stir up the masses and make us skeered the gummint gonna take away our P2P by letting the RIAA sue anyone who writes a P2P program or runs a peer-based download service.

    People who advertise a tool expressly for its illegal purposes were already liable for those eventual uses. The Grokster case merely, and rightly, applied that old-as-the-hills principle to file-sharing services.

    EFF is fearmongering for donations.

  • Sorry (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Monday July 04, 2005 @01:14PM (#12980319) Homepage
    And with all the sympathy for the EFF and the fine work they're doing I just can't muster any empathy for the Grokster folks.

    The supreme courts decision is a sound one. Those folks tried to freeload on the work of others and only thought of the "non-infringing use [ha!ha!]" when they where dragged to court.

    Let me add that the direction copyright legislation is taking worldwide and specifically in the US is appaling, but that doesn't make it right to get rich quick on the expense of others.

    Even if those others are such a depicable, rotten and corrupt organization as the RIAA.

  • Doesn't this mean that the US can be held... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @04:37PM (#12981234) Homepage Journal
    ... responsible for WMDs?

    For clearly what other possible intent could there be in the manufacturing and sale of such items?

    Or at least this is the thought that comes quickly to mind in reading about this grokster case.

  • In case the EFF is reading: (Score:2)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @04:59PM (#12981324)
    I stopped donating to the EFF and let my membership lapse over a year ago because of the EFF's activities on behalf of "file-sharing" networks, websites, etc., whose primary focus is to encourage piracy. By support these groups and individuals, you undermine the credibility of the EFF and associate legitimate internet pioneers with profiteering sleazebags. As long as the EFF continues to support entities that are profiting from blatantly encouraging people to use their networks for piracy, I will not support the EFF, and I will encourage other EFF memebers to discontinue their support as well.

  • All hell has just broken loose (Score:2)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @05:38PM (#12981452)
    On several of my previous posts over the years, I would declare that all hell was about to break loose. Well it has now broken loose!

    Basically this is like the civil war, accept information age style. The battles will not be fought with soldiers, but with endless cross litigation, civil harassment, frivolous lawsuits, property confiscation, virus and worm attacks, spyware and spybots, and plain old fasion brow beating.

    There will be no north and south, this time only pro-ip and anti-ip, pro information controll and anti information controll backed by various loose alliances. In fact, even within the same corporations there will be massive division.

    Better take sides now, because anyone inbetween will simply used as a pawn and exploited for the one or the other sides. Like it or not, the middle ground is dead! Like it or not, they are going to force this into an all or nothing game. Copyrights and non tangable patents will either last for all eternity or be dead for the rest of eternity. That is the bottom line.

Slashdot Top Deals

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

Close