PsypherX

And so it begins...

12 posts in this topic

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology...kster/index.htm

From the article:

"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," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.

Does anyone else think it's asinine to hold software developers responsible for the file-sharing "problem" and still sue John Q. Public? If they're going to convict Grokster, then they ought to drop all the cases against those who used Grokster.

Fucking pick one, you pricks. :pissed:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i completely agree that it's asinine. if people were going to sue over a piece of software being used outside its normal bounds, Napster would have NEVER been reincarnated and companies such as Microsoft would be out of business.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't stop us, they can only hope to contain us.

Anonymous proxy P2P tools (like WASTE, etc...) and onion routing will begin to thrive.

Let them keep reacting while we keep innovating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let them keep reacting while we keep innovating.

Ooooo, that's signature material right there! In anycase, there will always be decentrilized p2p networks that can not be taken down. A ruiling like this effects a software developer which in this context seems to me to imply more of acompany, rather then a person who develops software. What's to stop someone from writting a program under a handle and distribute it that way?

Further, this ruiling simply forces a new trial in the same court that handed down the orignal verdict. While this lower court must follow the princible of "Starry decises" (sp?) which simply means that a court should follow rulings handed down by other courts with similar jurisdiction. It does not say that the recording industries have already won. It simply states that they have the right to seek some sort of legal relief against a company that develops p2p software, that could be used to transfer copyrighted material. All this brings me back to a single point. If the record/movie companies weren't charging 17.99 for a CD a lot more people would simply just buy the media. Perhabs instead of spending the millions upon million that they spend in legal costs they could simply lower their prices?

I have always firmly believed that artists and companies deserve to be compensated for their efforts, and if a product is good people will pay for it. But in an era where one student movie ticket is $9 and is precided by 20 minutes of commercials it makes you wonder what it is your paying for...

-Dr^ZigMan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real key here is the intent of the software - if the primary motive behind the creation and marketing of the software is the infringement of copyright, then it falls under this ruling. If the device has substantial non-infringing uses and is marketed on those strengths, then it does not fall within the bounds of this ruling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the real key here is the intent of the software - if the primary motive behind the creation and marketing of the software is the infringement of copyright, then it falls under this ruling.  If the device has substantial non-infringing uses and is marketed on those strengths, then it does not fall within the bounds of this ruling.

I've gathered as much since my original post, after having read some comments about it at various sites. It still sucks though. There's plenty of wiggle room for Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA to bend perception now. Instead of having to prove file sharing companies are liable, they just have to prove that the companies are embracing and/or encouraging illicit usage of their product, which is infinitely easier in the legal world.

:(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motive is argumentative to define. My motive to create such software is the challenge of making it, but you can bet your ass that they will say otherwise.

It also states that they have to provide reasonable attempts at preventing sharing of copywritten material. what defines "reasonable"? A one-man developer does not have the time to write in a million filters for every possible filetype. And what about bittorrent? The intent is to provide fast, decnetralized file transfers. If he doesn't write check to look for copywritten software (checksums, id tags, DRM checks, etc...) can they say he didnt provide a "reasonable attempt"?

And what about someone whose tool is used in a way it wasnt intended? Again bittorent as an example. Withotu all of teh web sites that list and have searchable trackers, it is a great tool that should never get its author sued! This ruling stifles technical creativity once again in the United States. It really makes me want to cry. :cry:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, this is one step toward subtle censorship from the inside out. In today's world of large files (i.e., Linux distributions, homebrew OSes, freeware games, independent movies, local band albums and the like), programs and protocols like this are needed for innovation to not only continue, but to thrive. If they manage to take away the incentive to create file-sharing programs, they take away the possibility of sharing innovative, LEGAL files, which then leaves no incentive for future creators of said files to even type the first line of code, or record that first bit of audio or video.

Fuck the MPAA and double-fuck the RIAA. Talk about cutting your fucking nose off to spite your face. :pissed:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't stop us, they can only hope to contain us.

Anonymous proxy P2P tools (like WASTE, etc...) and onion routing will begin to thrive.

Let them keep reacting while we keep innovating.

waste is not an anonymous p2p tool

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can't stop us, they can only hope to contain us.

Anonymous proxy P2P tools (like WASTE, etc...) and onion routing will begin to thrive.

Let them keep reacting while we keep innovating.

waste is not an anonymous p2p tool

yes, poor choice of phrasing on my part....I meant that there are tools to get around this. Waste, IIRC, is an invite-only encrypted file sharing system. It is a solution to the problem, but it does like I inferred that it was anonymous P2P which it probably is not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH REALLY?! FUCKING IMAGINE THAT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least the prosecution got owned by one of the Justices in the first page and a half of the transcript. :lol:

WARNING: Link is a PDF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now