PDA

View Full Version : New Ruling on File Sharing Networks


Alakazam
06-28-2005, 01:37 PM
On June 27th, the last day the court is in session, the US Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to sue websites who own/create/distribute p2p (peer-to-peer) software for copyright infringements due to illegal filesharing on their networks. The stated logic behind this decision was that: "since these programs had the capabilty to allow illegal filesharing, the creators of the programs are responsible".

The court also ruled that Sony cannot be sued due to any illegal copying / distributing with their VCRs, allegedly because there are legitimare uses for a VCR (the one example that was used was taping a show and watching it later).

-------------------------------
^ end info

\/ start Zam's opinion on the topic / start of debate
------------------------------

Does anyone else see the absuridty of this ruling? Not only are there numerous legitimate uses for p2p networking, but there are just as many legitimate purposes as there are for a VCR, if not more. So why does Sony get off scott free? Oh wait, I forgot that the Bush administation and those like-minded to them care much mroe aobut multi-million dollar corporations that the welfare of the American people.

Are the US Supreme Court Justices really naive enough to believe that there are no legitamate uses of p2 networking? I certainly hope not. Could they really be that out of touch?


And to add to the rediculous of it all, this ruling clearly states the following logic: "it is constitutional to sue the creator of a product which COULD be used illegally, if the case comes up that it is used illegally."

So, we can now sue ford/dodge/etc. for vehicular homicides? Companies who produce knives and guns can be sued because of murder and suicide, even though there are many legitamate uses for those products?

Pfft, I say we've really gotta reduce the amount of stifiling conservatism in the supreme court....just look where it's getting us. I sincerely hope that Bush doesn't get the chance to appoint a justice.

The End
06-28-2005, 01:51 PM
its not going to stop people from getting music from limewire etc etc

Bashaamo
06-28-2005, 07:55 PM
Alakazam,

I disagree with you. For one going out and buying a VCR is supporting the economy, buying a tape to record is supporting the economy, using your tv (cable, power) is supporting the economy and besides the initial cable bill there is no fee (besides pay-per-view) for watching individual shows that usually only air once! And TV networks want you to watch their programs.

On the other hand you don't pay for the music when you illegally download it from the net. And your are downloading songs/videos that were not meant to be given out for free. You have to respecet that copyright and the party's ownership, its simple capitalism. The people behind that media did not want you to have that in that way for free. I know that if I were to make a movie or something I would want people to pay to see it and not want stolen copies being sent about the web.

I mean come on Zam just go out and buy yourself an iPod and use iTunes. President Bush does!

I only agree with file sharing when the original owners intended to give out that media for free like the way new music groups want to send out their tunes.

Pfft, I say we've really gotta reduce the amount of stifiling conservatism in the supreme court....just look where it's getting us. I sincerely hope that Bush doesn't get the chance to appoint a justice.

How can you say that? Look at what those justices did to the ten commandments displays in Kentucky, there are liberals on the SC too. IMO the decision that was made was not a conservative biased decision, but a capitalist minded decision.

And as much as I like Rehnquist I wouldn't mind to see his passing during Bush's term so he could put another conservative on the bench.

You know who I'd pick for the job? Ann Coulter!

mlugia
06-28-2005, 08:15 PM
By that same logic, Bash, you can argue that buying a computer, getting internet access, and electrical bills racked up by the use of the computer, not to mention creating jobs for service technicians and helpdesk support is much more beneficial to the economy than buying an IPod, as it generates more revenue?

As well, if that same song plays on your TV as a hitlist video or something, and you tape it and distribute, would that not be illegal file sharing as well? The only difference is this time you get pictures out of the VCR as opposed to just an MP3...

Just a thought, anyhow.

Kenny_C.002
06-29-2005, 12:04 AM
Right, so for the potential illegal purposes of a p2p network, you can sue? So does that mean that any product that has potential illegal purposes should also be under the knife (pun intended)? Simply said, the reasoning was incorrect. That's my analogy anyway.

Also note that legality is subjective to the different regions of the world.

Lord Celebi
06-29-2005, 12:40 AM
This is stupid. People are still gonna download files no matter what, but now, the program gets sued, not us...

I'm off to sue a knife company for making a potentially dangerous item now *calls lawyer*

Incongruity
06-29-2005, 01:05 AM
A global ban is retarded. Plain and simple

But I think you guys all know that the majority of p2p usage comes from download music files, or movies, porn, etc. Making the argument that p2p can be used for good purposes is like making the argument that a Trident III ICBM can be used for good purposes.

However, a ban of p2p is retarded for different reasons.


The 'anti-piracy' groups claim that you, too, would be pissed if you were making art and people were, in essence, "stealing it". Yes, some people say, "As long as they enjoy it," but those people haven't actually "made it" yet.

But, that's just a huge propaganda campaign. The level of income that the music industry gets hasn't changed that much. When adjusted for inflation, the numbers have been static for a while.

Hmm. Why is this? Aren't people downloading multimedia files by the millions?

Guess what. The rich would buy the albums later anyway, even if they already had the files. This is because humans are collectors. We like tangible things. Stuff that we can hold for generations. We don't just want the CD, we want the album cover, the case, etc. Come on, how often have you been tempted to by the Collector's Edition _____, when you know it's the exact same thing.

And the poor, they wouldn't have bought the albums anyway. P2P is the only way the poor can probably get access to music. In fact, when considering only the poor, P2P has done nothing but popularize music that the middle- to upper-classes would buy. They lost no income, because this demographic wouldn't have bought the music anyways.



So a global ban is retarded, yes. Not because of the whole "You can't ban a whole because of a few illicit activities" argument, but because those "illicit" activities really haven't had that much of an impact anyways.



Bash: .... Bush is rich I'm assuming the Ann Coulter thing was a joke. Yes, while we're at it let's appoint Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Sean Hannity. In fact, let's forget all moderation whatsoever. The 10 commandments thing wasn't a liberal decision; it was a constitutional decision In my opinion, the decision that was made on the file-sharing thing was a moronic and ignorant decision. So that means either conservatives are morons, or capitalists are morons.

Alakazam
06-29-2005, 01:00 PM
I disagree with you.

There's a big surprise.

For one going out and buying a VCR is supporting the economy, buying a tape to record is supporting the economy, using your tv (cable, power) is supporting the economy and besides the initial cable bill there is no fee (besides pay-per-view) for watching individual shows that usually only air once! And TV networks want you to watch their programs.

*motions towards the first part of mlugia's reply* Damn, he beat me to it.

On the other hand you don't pay for the music when you illegally download it from the net. And your are downloading songs/videos that were not meant to be given out for free. You have to respecet that copyright and the party's ownership, its simple capitalism. The people behind that media did not want you to have that in that way for free. I know that if I were to make a movie or something I would want people to pay to see it and not want stolen copies being sent about the web.

If you're talking about movies, than I agree that it just shouldn't happen.

However, its a much different situation with music. The reality of it is that the majority of the revenue coming in from the sales of music goes to the record labels, and not to the artists to whom the material actually belongs. Many artists actually support the concept of their music being downloaded. It's basically free publicity, and its has an overall positive effect for the artists. In fact, a number of bands have actually given permission for thieir music to be distributed for free on the internet. So, it's really just the record labels that are complaining, and, like sk said, they're not really losing much (if any) money from music downloading. If the artists don't care, frankly, I don't care what such conglomerates want. I think I'll pass on supporting corporate greed, thank you very much.

I mean come on Zam just go out and buy yourself an iPod and use iTunes.

Why does it seem to me that you're acting as a poster boy for corporations? First of all, I have no interest in paying for $300 for a small machine that plays music....I already have an excellent Sony walkman that plays mp3-CDs.

iTunes, heh. Right, I should definately shop at the iTunes store to fill up my iPod, right? Don't make me laugh. Do you realize that only between 5 and 8 cents from each sale of a song goes to the band? The rest is pocketed by Apple and the record label behind the band. What a joke.

President Bush does!

[extreme sarcasm]Right, because George W. Bush is such an excellent role model for us all. If he's doing something, than it must be perfectly logical, and I should ask myself "Why aren't I doing that?"

Perhaps I should also start an illiegitimate war, and then spend the next few years trying to convince people that it was worth it.[/extreme sarcasm]

Why did you even bother posting that?

You know who I'd pick for the job? Ann Coulter!

Is it your goal to lose all credibility on this forum by posting in the OD? Or are you just practicing for a politically-based stand up routine?

Ann Coulter is pretty much a conservative (no, make that extreme conservative) version of Lewis Black...except that Black would be a better candidate that Coulter. Ann Coulter is a comedian disguised as a pundit.


Also note that legality is subjective to the different regions of the world.

Though you are correct, we are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court...


----

Also, I'd like to add that in the specific ruling in the Supreme Court on the 27th, it was claimed that Grokster (which has a p2p progam) encouraged illegal filesharing, which I find very difficult to believe. What site promotes such actions? In fact, I'm pretty sure most have disclaimers waiving all responsibilty...

Incongruity
06-29-2005, 03:35 PM
Oh, wow, I don't know what I was thinking when I was typing my previous post.

I didn't mean adjusted for inflation, I meant adjusted for the various factors (other than "piracy") that would affect the industry; for example, the whole economy going down, the decrease of music's importance in our culture, etc.


Lemme share with you. I'm sure you all know of what napster is.

1998: 847.0 million (CD) units shipped
1999: 938.9 million (CD) units shipped, Napster founded
2000: 942.5 million (CD) units shipped, after-effects of Napster show

wtg? Music sales went up after napster founded? :rolleyes:


Then, for some completely weird reason, between 2001 and 2002, there was a huge drop in music sales.

Now, what could possibly have let to such a massive downfall in sales, in a period when the economy was booming?[/sarcasm]


And guess what. The RIAA is going to try to abuse statistics. There was a huge decrease in overall sales in the last decade of the 20th century. Why? Guess what, nobody's buying cassettes or vinyl anymore. The RIAA suffered their greatest losses in the cassette and cassette single areas. Why isn't anyone buying cassettes anymore? :rolleyes:

This is why I just showed the CD figures. Every other figure is just used to spin facts.

Bashaamo
06-29-2005, 08:37 PM
Why did you even bother posting that?

Your right, I should have said that you should get and iPod because Queen Elizabeth has one.


Is it your goal to lose all credibility on this forum by posting in the OD? Or are you just practicing for a politically-based stand up routine?

The only reason I stay here at PE2k is for the OD! And I'm always 100% serious 50% of the time, usually.

Bashaamo
06-29-2005, 08:51 PM
SSK:

1. Bush recived the iPod as a gift from his daughters, and he only has about 350 songs on it and he could have 10,000.

2. I think any of those fine people would be good choices for the bench, but then again in an ideal world there would be no "bench" a'tall.

3. Where in this holy Constitution of ours do you see it say that there cannot be 10 commandment monuments on state property? (I already have a counter argument ready).

4. If you think the protection of ownership of property is moronic then I guess you should just read some Steinbeck and listen to Lennon while you move to China because you are a communist :biggrin:

Incongruity
06-29-2005, 09:31 PM
1. Bush recived the iPod as a gift from his daughters, and he only has about 350 songs on it and he could have 10,000.
The discussion is not about ipods, it's about the music on those ipods. Do you believe a child struggling in an impoverished home through no fault of his/her own (note: it is a child; he cannot have gotten himself into poverty) could afford 350 songs? No. Whether or not (s)he had p2p, an impoverished child would not have bought songs.

2. I think any of those fine people would be good choices for the bench, but then again in an ideal world there would be no "bench" a'tall.
...Have you made a fool of yourself enough already, or must I point it out for everyone?

3. Where in this holy Constitution of ours do you see it say that there cannot be 10 commandment monuments on state property? (I already have a counter argument ready).
If you already have a counter-argument, why are you wasting my time. Ugh, merely to progress, I'll give the standard argument.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Read it. The placement of the ten commandments would have meant the government sponsored a religion, thus oppressing other religions. It would be "respecting the establishment" of a religion, and in the process prohibiting other religions (read commandment 1 of the version that was in the courthouses: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.")

It was in a high-traffic area of a courthouse, everyone could see it. It was clearly a religious statement that was sponsored by the present government.

The decision does not prohibit the free exercise of Christianity. When entering office, it is assumed (through Article VI Clause 3) that religion will remain separate. Exercise of religion does not belong in the courts; to move it there would violate the free exercise of other religions, and it would add government sponsorship to a certain religion, clearly going against two parts of the first amendment. Not only that, this specific religion that was so clearly state-sponsored in the courthouse is practiced on a Sunday. Meanwhile, if the doctrine of the ideology had remained, it would have universally banned all other religions, no matter the day.

4. If you think the protection of ownership of property is moronic then I guess you should just read some Steinbeck and listen to Lennon while you move to China because you are a communist :biggrin:
...This debate is not on the legitimacy of communism. If it was however, I would have to point out that a communist world would be the ideal world.

Unfortunately, human beings are not ideal in that our natural instinct teaches us to be individuals. Yes, we are inherently greedy, no matter how much we proclaim our selflessness. If the world was full of selfless people, communism could exist. If communism could exist, it would be the ideal world.

However, selfless people are too rare, and so communism cannot survive.


Also, now that the topic has been brought up, I might as well bash capitalism. There's really only one problem with capitalism. Lack of equal opportunity. Yes, believe it or not, a child in a family with a six-figure income will have better chances in life than an orphan on the streets of a ghetto. But in all other aspects, capitalism owns.

So what does this mean? Why, if the decision was moronic, and the decision was conservative...