• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Topic: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Finally some say, a common-sense decision. It looks like the Supremes believe the purpose of the software is essentially shady....

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

    Stevemitchell

  2. #2

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    I think they were quite specific in addressing the marketing of the software as being shady. P2P is very valuable for all sorts of file sharing.


    steve

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Orcas Island
    Posts
    11,454

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    "WASHINGTON (AP) - Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod. File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.

    "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," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court."

    This ruling may have implications for forums and chat rooms that either promote or turn a blind-eye to illegal trading.

  4. #4

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    And what of beautiful sites like www.legaltorrents.com?

    This uses the bittorrent client, which a lot of pirates use, but in this case it's for redistributable material.

    Why should you people care?

    Because they're distributing the excellent G-Town Sounds free sample collection, one that was previously pulled because the bandwidth was too expensive. By decentralizing the burden, it was given a new lease on life.

    But does the Supreme Court understand this? Of course not: they just listen to what Sony whispers in their ear.

    Remember, this is the same Supreme Court that last week ruled that states and municipalities have the right to take *your* house from you if they have a need to develop on your land, such as for a business complex.

    I ain't lying here. They're in the pocket of corporations just as much as Congress.

    - m
    Free MFX and other plugins: http://www.TenCrazy.com/
    Markleford's music: http://www.markleford.com/music/

  5. #5

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Simmer down, Markleford - the Supreme Court issued their unanimous decision specifically toward the intent and marketing of the technology - not the technology itself. Read the summary of the decision, and you will see that they are very specific in their ruling. This is one thing they got right.
    Houston Haynes - Titan Line Music

  6. #6

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    But the key factor is determining "intent", which is a quite subjective assesment that can be swayed by "expert testimony" in the form of corporate lobbyists. Sadly, judges know nothing of these issues and will always lean on the MPAA and RIAA to tell them how to rule.

    So what will this do? Teach new pirating apps to put a new spin on their PR: "Share class notes with your friends! Share your poetry!"

    Fantastic.

    - m
    Free MFX and other plugins: http://www.TenCrazy.com/
    Markleford's music: http://www.markleford.com/music/

  7. #7

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Naturally the ruling will be extended to all goods and services that can be used to commit a crime... I have heard that guns can be used for criminal purposes, so of course gun manufacturers and retailers will be held responsible for the actions of those who commit crimes with them. The same goes for manufactures and retailers of cars, knives, computers.... pretty much anything when you get down to it.

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

    Basically, the RIAA et all want their money. Too hard and expensive to go after all the individual file swappers individually, so they go for the medium and technology being used, and those that create and promote it. It's not about justice, responsibility - it's not even about the technology. Just money.

    Looks like money has won again.

    Wayne

  8. #8

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Yeah, well it's all a waste of time. The US has no control over software developers in other countries, which will fill whatever void is left by US companies that decide it isn't worth it.

    And it's far too costly to go after the thousands upon thousands of people who steal music.

    The only thing that's really going to work is a) education; and b) a new business strategy. For music, I think Rhapsody and similar places have the right idea.

    But no matter what they do, there will always be people who steal and people who create ways to make the stealing easier. It cannot be stopped. What the RIAA doesn't tell you is that statistics show that music purchases are on the upswing. It seems that -- like the Betamax -- after an initial lull, technology has helped the industry more than it has hurt.

    Perhaps this is because the instant availability has exposed people to music that they've never heard before.
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  9. #9

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_rowley
    Basically, the RIAA et all want their money.
    Wayne, with respect, I must disagree with the implications of your message. Yes, it's all about the money. That's rather the point, and there's nothing wrong with it. Making a profit is the reason people go into business, and that's not an immoral or unethical goal. As someone who's made a living in several careers from the creation of intellectual property (music, software, books), I see nothing wrong in a musician, a record company, or even a janitor expecting that they should be paid for their labors. Would you go to work each day if you didn't get a paycheck? Of course not. Why, then, should the creative community have any less expectations in that regard?

    RIAA has been clumsy and heavy handed in how they've gone about this, to be sure. However, I find no fault with their objective - trying to prevent people from stealing products whose sales others depend upon for their livelihood. It's a difficult problem. For some reason, people who wouldn't steal an orange from a store think nothing's wrong with stealing a song from a musician (and the record companies et al who support the musician in making these sales). I hear lots of complaints about how organizations and legislative bodies go about addressing these concerns, but no one ever offers a better solution that would protect the creative community from theft.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_rowley
    Looks like money has won again.
    Actually, quite the opposite is true. In the piracy game, tons of money is being lost, and there's no solution in sight.

    The other thing that always surprises me is the prevalent attitude that even if it's wrong when an artist gets ripped off, if a corporation gets ripped off, well, that's somehow okay. What about guys like Gary? If software piracy rose to the point of putting him out of business, would that be okay? Would he somehow have deserved it because he was "a company"?

    There's a double standard at play in much of this thinking. Ultimately, it's a very thin veil over the oldest of motivations. People want to get something for nothing, and will cloak their attempts in whatever morality is convenient to let them feel better about stealing. They will also, of course, become morally outraged should someone try to stop their efforts, because they've convinced themselves that they are somehow entitled to take the property of others without paying for it.

    If you download a product that was not offered for free, it's theft. If you have a commercial product, you have a right to defend yourself from thieves. These are some very fundamental principles that have been honored by most civilized societies throughout the course of human history. The fact that the Internet makes it harder to enforce does not change what's right and wrong.
    Christopher Duncan
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Author of
    Unite the Tribes and The Career Programmer
    www.PracticalUSA.com


  10. #10

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against File-Share Authors

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Duncan
    The other thing that always surprises me is the prevalent attitude that even if it's wrong when an artist gets ripped off, if a corporation gets ripped off, well, that's somehow okay.
    The underlying issue here is the Major Label's abusive, usurious relationship with the Artist. See Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music" for a good description, and things have only gotten worse.

    Many fans have realised that the Label makes most of its money off sales, and the Artist makes most of its money from touring and merch, so to them it hurts the Label more to pirate albums and continue to see the shows. After all, the price for the $18 CD doesn't go into the Artist's pocket, right?

    But that's nutty logic: the band still makes maybe 30 cents per unit sold. And why would you call yourself a fan and then not legal obtain the good? Meh. Nuttier still, some people will happily pirate Major Label CDs, but faithfully buy all Indy Label releases. Go figure.

    Of course, some people will buy their favorite band's stuff, but then pirate other stuff as a "trial basis". To me, this really isn't much different than checking a CD out from the library.

    (And remember the hubbub in the 80's about home cassette taping killing music? Looks like music is still with us.)

    Personal opinion: I don't think flagging sales are all about piracy. It's more to do with the fact that you can sample music online now at Amazon.com and determine, "Hey, this album really sucks once you get past the single!" I know I've certainly bought less on word-of-mouth since the advent of 30-sec online previews.

    - m
    Free MFX and other plugins: http://www.TenCrazy.com/
    Markleford's music: http://www.markleford.com/music/

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •