File-sharing decision quashed by U.S. Supreme Court

It doesn't sound so bad to me.

Internet file-sharing services can be held accountable for billions in lost revenue if they intend their software to be used to swap songs and movies illegally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Click to expand...

Which would suggest that if a file-sharing service exists, and is misused by customers, the file-sharing service wouldn't be held responsible. If, on the other hand, you log onto the website and there are a bunch of tips and suggestions on illegally downloading movies, and articles about "Steal All the Music!", etc, that would prove the fs company did indeed intend to violate the law.

I don't see how they could have decided any other way--they couldn't let companies deliberately set out to break the law. But they made it a requirement that the company itself has to intend to break the law in order to have a case, rather than condemning the technology itself out of hand because of the possibility of abuse (which is what the RIAA and like actually seem to want!).

Just like you can't hold the Post Office accountable for the Unabomber sending bombs through....unless the Post Office had big helpful posters advising customers of the best way to devise triggers, and had a special "bomb rate" postage.
 
Re: Re: File-sharing decision quashed by U.S. Supreme Court

RandFan said:
I'm curious, why? I have some conflicting notions but ultimately I think the rights of the artists should be predicted.
Click to expand...

??? Did you mean 'protected'?

That's what the decision does, more or less. But it won't help. It's like emptying the ocean with a whisky glass.
 
Re: Re: File-sharing decision quashed by U.S. Supreme Court

RandFan said:
I'm curious, why? I have some conflicting notions but ultimately I think the rights of the artists should be predicted.
Click to expand...

99.9% of the time, it's not the artists' rights in question--it's the record companies' business model. The entire file sharing war has been between consumers and the RIAA, with the artists caught in the middle.

Of course, it's presented as being about the artists--largely because portraying it as Joe Guitarist living out of his van generates more sympathy than Megacorp needing a couple million more to make the shareholders happy.
 
"We hold 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," Justice David Souter wrote for the court.
Click to expand...
As it's stated here, I agree with this decision. If someone is offering a program, promoting that it's used to violate copyright law, then they should be liable. But I don't see how this affects onlne piracy (beyond the practical matter that most people are not under the jurisdiction of US copyright law).
Seems to me that it's simply a matter of advertising, just don't promote that the program is for getting copyrighted material. If the ruling extends to any program that could be or is used for violating copyrights, then pretty much every single piece of communications software (excepting maybe network admin software) would be in trouble. The Internet is a collection of file sharing protocols, nothing more.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It doesn't sound so bad to me.



Which would suggest that if a file-sharing service exists, and is misused by customers, the file-sharing service wouldn't be held responsible. If, on the other hand, you log onto the website and there are a bunch of tips and suggestions on illegally downloading movies, and articles about "Steal All the Music!", etc, that would prove the fs company did indeed intend to violate the law.

I don't see how they could have decided any other way--they couldn't let companies deliberately set out to break the law. But they made it a requirement that the company itself has to intend to break the law in order to have a case, rather than condemning the technology itself out of hand because of the possibility of abuse (which is what the RIAA and like actually seem to want!).

Just like you can't hold the Post Office accountable for the Unabomber sending bombs through....unless the Post Office had big helpful posters advising customers of the best way to devise triggers, and had a special "bomb rate" postage.
Click to expand...

That's what I understood, however I wonder what qualifies as a liable company under that ruling.
 
Yes they should, but this protection should be made in a way that acknowledges how the internet operates. The arrangements that are now being pushed for don't protect the artists, they protect the big media corporations.

I'm afraid that this ruling could open the door to abuses and pointless charges. And it could lead to something similar to asking a telephone company to be responsible for what people do with their telephone lines. Also, I'm curious to see how they can find a way of differentiating between a company encouraging legitimate downloads and a company pushing illegitimate downloads.
 
Grammatron said:
That's what I understood, however I wonder what qualifies as a liable company under that ruling.
Click to expand...

I sometimes get the feeling the SC likes to leave things open for argument to ensure future business for themselves.
 
Re: Re: Re: File-sharing decision quashed by U.S. Supreme Court

Rob Lister said:
??? Did you mean 'protected'?
Click to expand...
Why? Isn't predicting the rights of artists important? What would Sylvia Browne say? :D

That's what the decision does, more or less. But it won't help. It's like emptying the ocean with a whisky glass.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Could not a software developer simply say that it should not be used for illegal purposes to avoid liability?

If such a disclaimer isn't enough, then would that not allow entities like gun manufacturers to be held liable for their weapons used in crimes?

Grokster doesn't steal music. People steal music. ;)
 
Orwell said:
Also, I'm curious to see how they can find a way of differentiating between a company encouraging legitimate downloads and a company pushing illegitimate downloads.
Click to expand...

Ignorance. If the company knows that its services are being used to break the law, it will have to try to stop that activity. Ban a few users, issue some stern notices to the rest of the customers, etc. But they're not omnicognizant, any more than the telephone carrier that someone uses to make prank phone calls, and thus can't be held responsible for not stopping what it didn't know was going on.

The trick is that some are going to try to get millions out of claiming that the companies do know, and are pretending they don't, because they get their money from the illegal activities. Which is going to have to be proved, somehow.

"I have recorded evidence that the CEO of Napster said in a press conference 'Of course we don't want our customers to steal music, wink wink.' I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this 'wink wink' is evidence enough to damn them into paying one hundred million dollars!" (pinkie to mouth)
 
shecky said:

If such a disclaimer isn't enough, then would that not allow entities like gun manufacturers to be held liable for their weapons used in crimes?

Grokster doesn't steal music. People steal music. ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting point. If the makers of Grokster are liable because their users primarily use the software to pirate software and music, shouldn't the makers of handguns be held legally responsible if their users use the products to kill people?

After all, let's be honest here, a handgun isn't a hunting weapon.

(For the record, I am pro- gun rights. I'm merely pointing out why this decision is not necessarily the good thing people seem to think it is.)
 
Orwell said:
Yes they should, but this protection should be made in a way that acknowledges how the internet operates. The arrangements that are now being pushed for don't protect the artists, they protect the big media corporations.

I'm afraid that this ruling could open the door to abuses and pointless charges. And it could lead to something similar to asking a telephone company to be responsible for what people do with their telephone lines. Also, I'm curious to see how they can find a way of differentiating between a company encouraging legitimate downloads and a company pushing illegitimate downloads.
Click to expand...

Let me begin by saying, I understand how internet works and my job has to do with it.

It would be dishonest to say that companies like Morpheus and KaZa do not profit from illegal trade of files over their networks. And there practically no legal use on their network going on. And yes, I have used them in the past (to download things I already legally own, *cough*)

Now something like bittorrent is quite different as it's used legally quite a bit and is not supported by advertising.

If that's what SCOTUS meant by its ruling then I agree.
 
Cleon said:
Interesting point. If the makers of Grokster are liable because their users primarily use the software to pirate software and music, shouldn't the makers of handguns be held legally responsible if their users use the products to kill people?

After all, let's be honest here, a handgun isn't a hunting weapon.

(For the record, I am pro- gun rights. I'm merely pointing out why this decision is not necessarily the good thing people seem to think it is.)
Click to expand...

Depends, can you buy a legal way to kill a person? :)

It seems to me they are not holding companies liable for people merely using the network but the networks being built with the intent for people to use it to pirate software/music/etc.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Ignorance. If the company knows that its services are being used to break the law, it will have to try to stop that activity. Ban a few users, issue some stern notices to the rest of the customers, etc. But they're not omnicognizant, any more than the telephone carrier that someone uses to make prank phone calls, and thus can't be held responsible for not stopping what it didn't know was going on.

The trick is that some are going to try to get millions out of claiming that the companies do know, and are pretending they don't, because they get their money from the illegal activities. Which is going to have to be proved, somehow.

"I have recorded evidence that the CEO of Napster said in a press conference 'Of course we don't want our customers to steal music, wink wink.' I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this 'wink wink' is evidence enough to damn them into paying one hundred million dollars!" (pinkie to mouth)
Click to expand...

You just nailed it on the head: that's exactly what I'm afraid will happen!
 
Grammatron said:
Depends, can you buy a legal way to kill a person? :)
Click to expand...

Sure. Buying a handgun is perfectly legal for home protection. Protection how? Typically when someone's breaking into your house and you decide to shoot, you're not aiming for the kneecaps.


It seems to me they are not holding companies liable for people merely using the network but the networks being built with the intent for people to use it to pirate software/music/etc.
Click to expand...

But again...If a handgun's built for the purpose of killing people, which (let's face it) it is, how is this different from Morpheus building a network for people to trade music on? Both are, in the vast majority of instances, illegal. If Morpheus is liable for perceived damages due to downloading, why isn't Glock liable for people who die at the end of one of their guns?
 
Cleon said:
Sure. Buying a handgun is perfectly legal for home protection. Protection how? Typically when someone's breaking into your house and you decide to shoot, you're not aiming for the kneecaps.


But again...If a handgun's built for the purpose of killing people, which (let's face it) it is, how is this different from Morpheus building a network for people to trade music on? Both are, in the vast majority of instances, illegal. If Morpheus is liable for perceived damages due to downloading, why isn't Glock liable for people who die at the end of one of their guns?
Click to expand...

Well if you can show that Glock is made with the intent of gangsters and drug dealers using them you have a point.
 
Re: Re: Re: File-sharing decision quashed by U.S. Supreme Court

Cleon said:
99.9% of the time, it's not the artists' rights in question--it's the record companies' business model. The entire file sharing war has been between consumers and the RIAA, with the artists caught in the middle.
Click to expand...

Thats true, those people found a way to get rich using the talent of the artists and the money of the buyers. They should dissapear. I will not give my money to such pirates. Oh yes, I do believe they are the real pirates.

And regarding the "losses" they have, its nonsense. Most of the people that download something would never buy it in the first place. Besides, some studies conclude that free sharing impulses the selling of albums, because most people still want the original CD to the MP3 (if they like the artist).
 
Grammatron said:
Well if you can show that Glock is made with the intent of gangsters and drug dealers using them you have a point.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? How do you prove that one way or the other? A handgun's purpose is to kill people. What else would you design it for? Same goes for a network like FastTrack or Morpheus.

How about armor-piercing bullets and weapons? Perfectly legal, generally. What else are they made for, except to punction bullet-proof vests? (And let's face it--rarely do deer or paper targets wear bullet-proof vests.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom