This morning the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that internet P2P file sharing services may be sued by production studios for the actions of their users, a ruling that could all but eliminate file sharing networks such as the case's defendant, Grokster. The ruling was one of the most closely watched technology cases since 1984, when the legality of video cassette tape recorders was established.
The core argument of the defendants was that while certain people use their software for illegal purposes, their product had a wide array of pratical, seemingly legal uses, such as businesses and researchers sharing files. However, Grokster did admit that their uses did commit "widespread" copyright infringement.
The ruling came down to whether or not technology may remain legal if its users used it for illegal purposes, and answer was an emphatic no.
News source: mediaweek.com
The core argument of the defendants was that while certain people use their software for illegal purposes, their product had a wide array of pratical, seemingly legal uses, such as businesses and researchers sharing files. However, Grokster did admit that their uses did commit "widespread" copyright infringement.
The ruling came down to whether or not technology may remain legal if its users used it for illegal purposes, and answer was an emphatic no.
News source: mediaweek.com
Key findings of the study include:
- On a per-asset basis, the Microsoft platform is less expensive to patch than a similar OSS environment:
-Windows desktops cost 14 percent less to patch than Linux desktops.
-Windows servers cost 13 percent less to patch than Linux servers.
-Windows database servers cost 33 percent less to patch than Linux database servers.
- OSS-based systems faced with high-level and critical vulnerabilities are at risk longer than comparable Windows-based systems.
- Survey respondents consistently overestimated the number of Windows vulnerabilities, while underestimating those for OSS.
- Through the use of best practices, Windows patching costs can be reduced by up to 55 percent.
Look at imeem for example - it's got a ton of legitimate features NOT related to file sharing, but it also allows users to share files and also to decide who is able to see that the file share even exists at all.
Recently the gang over at the SomethingAwful.com forums discovered this and wasted no time forming a community for their members. For a day or so there were a couple hundred "SA Goons" wandering around and then they all just dissapeared into their own little secure network.
It's pretty sweet software because if I share a file and a friend with a better connection downloads it from me - a third friend, when clicking on my share might actually get the file from the first friend because the connection speed is better - and the two friends don't even have to know each other.
Best of all, the entire imeem network is encrypted and peer to peer. The result is, the only people who can monitor what you're doing are the folks you've linked to.
At the moment imeem is in a private Beta, but I have a few invites left. Message me (Hotmail account, username n_okla) with your first name, last name, and email and I'll send one out. I think I have 5 left, but each user starts with 15 I think, so you can invite quite a few buddies before you run out.
Also, students at ceartain universities can get an account with their school email address here:
imeem Educational Invitation Page
This sort of technology is a good way to preserve the ability to legally transfer files as permitted by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010.
Are providers or users responsible for adherence to copyright laws?
peeps in us of a .. why are you taking this up urs and sit quite? surely internet is not america.... other countries living on planet earth also have servers but majority of big pipe servers are at ur place....
what about the linux distributions being distributed? how will they go now? firstly they the maker of linux makes it for free provides it for free ... how do u expect him to arrange for bandwidth in total? torrent was the best and most cost affective way to distribute. now this USA dupreme court ruling.
it could have been all together diff to ban torrent files with movies and mp3 in it.... we all know almost 94 percent of them dont want it to be distributed freely by torrents very few musicians and independent film-maker wont mind it(mostly unknown).
but out-right ban?
I understand your point. But englsih has always been about commons and style. If you can say something(or write it) and the vast majority of people get your point, then you're correct. English professors will debate this, but the truth is you can redefine any word at almost anytime if you supply enough information before and after the use of that word that most can understand your point and the general meaning of the word.
FTP
HTTP
TCP/IP
Both of these are responsible for File-Sharing, and so, logically from the ruling, We can sue whomever created them, as well as those who create products that use them (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, Outlook...)
I'd like to see them try and take down the P2P networks. eDonkey can be used to index Torrents, On Limewire, you just ignore files ~105KB, and on Kazaa, you use Kazaa LIte Resurrection to block the bogue music files.
They'll stop me file sharing when they remove my mouse from my cold, dead paws.
I'm surprized they would take it this far, the suggested verbage is WAAAAAY too broad.
In the source, it states:
"the justices decided services such as Grokster may be sued if the services encourage illegal file-swapping."
I think you got it wrong in the news article. I don't think P2P services can be sued if their users decide to abuse it.
Now let's pretend there is a P2P service out there that only shares text and document files....perfectly legal. Now if someone has half a brain cell to rename a movie or music file extension to .txt or whatever, and transmit it on the P2P network, the company will not be held liable because that was not it's intent to transfer music or movies.
But basically any P2P company that even mentions or allows downloading of music, apps, or movies (legal or not).....even if they publicly discourage it.....they will be sued
That's my smart side talking....time to rant:
**** teh MPAA/RIAA
All gun manufacturers should now be held responsible because someone might rob a bank with a gun manufactured by the company. Thats how stupid this ruling is.
The RIAA/MPAA will now use this as fuel to get all the more laws passed in congress. After they have paid off all the judges and congressmen.
Plus all those above who are saying they can sue the makers of TCP/IP and what not are just overreacting. The suit specifically says p2p, not the protocal used for internet communications.
Do I think the court overstepped it's britches of course, but their rulling is failry conservitive and not as broad as some of you all say it is.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-23-voa66.cfm
Freedom is a dying art, here in the US.
As for freedom is a dying art, in most cases I fully agree with you. Remember though in cases like this that filesharing a copyrighted peice of music is a crime, and we don't have the freedom to break the law.
Please remember that the Supreme Court is not like your local court. It deals specifically with the constitutionality of existing laws and lower court decisions.
The Supreme Court actually gave an extremely narrow decision against promoting copyright infringment in the marketing of a product. This decision would apply to the promotion of any product for use in an already established illegal activity.
Under current U.S. law, downloading a copy of music for which you have not paid royalties is a crime. Marketing a software application as a tool to illegally obtain material has now been deemed a no-no.
This case will now go back to the state court to decide if Grokster's promotion violates this decision by promoting illegal downloading.
Likewise you can't design a p2p filesharing application and say use this application to share movies and songs that you didn't pay for.
I've seen some P2Ps which basically say "get music or movies for free". I suppose they could be sued for that now.
Edit: I actually think this could be pushed a lot further. For example, if a torrent site refused to remove copyrighted material, or a P2P service refuses to block a certain search term, that could be seen as promoting piracy.
Last edited by 57213 on 27 Jun 2005 - 17:26
Perhaps if YOU had read some of the earlier news articles, you would have your "tirade" too. FACT is the news reports were all saying the same thing we all are complaining about. None of them mentioned it was only a ruling on a portion of file sharing, until the later reports.
I hate people whi think they know it all.
Damn straight! People who think they know it all really piss off those of us that actually do!
god bless america ... they need it
Imagine if they arrested everyone who uses it. Hahaha
HTH
I PIRATE! *kisses*
There is a much better solution then this. A server dedicated to P2P file-sharing, that makes it possible to share copyrighted material can and should be held liable. There is no specifications of the technologies used in the sharing...it could be FTP, HTTP, or any other common Internet protocol. The technology isn't what should be held responsible, its the owner of the server using the technology and what they are offering to the general public that should be held responsible here.
Take bit torrent for example. A Linux distribution can setup a bit torrent tracker for distributing their distributions legally. They are in a since running a tracker server that is dedicated to legal file sharing. They should have nothing to fear from these P2P laws.
We'll see how this turns out.
Its only illegal if the makers say
USE THIS FOR WAREZ
I honestly dont see how they could have done it any other way.
This is A WIN for p2p, not a loss!
That is what people are commenting on. How true it is, well..i guess that's "where unprofessional journalism looks [errumm] better."
Sue them for false advertisement too
Hell, file sharing was popular from the beginnings of the popularity of computers and dial up modems connecting to sysop sites before the internet became more popular & more widely available to the masses to sign up and log on.
Then boom! Millions of files passes through the bottleneck of the internet every single day.
If these asshats wants to stop file sharing altogether, they will have to sue to get the entire internet shut down as a whole, in which case I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Bill Gates was right... our support for technology growth is plummeting and now courts are banning tech use because they can't find a creative way to live with it. What a shame!
Last edited by 113191 on 27 Jun 2005 - 22:21
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.
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.
well not my damn country
The Opinion
Last edited by 6632 on 27 Jun 2005 - 23:29
It's an evil little thing called "Copy And Paste" and allows criminals to copy files onto disks and them "share" them illegaly.
God, you yanks have a messed-up legal system. The rich have rights, the not-so-rich don't have as many rights, and the poor people are treated worse than the pets of the rich. God help you if you actual have a brain and know how to file-share.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.