Comments on: Grokster v Hollywood, reloaded http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:47:36 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655/comment-page-1#comment-8995 Reader's Write Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:05:20 +0000 #comment-8995 It will also backfire on the already discredited American court system which is made up of strictly political appointees who continually contradicts themselves. Backing out of the Sony-Betamax decision to favor Hollywood (and ironically Sony this time around as a movie maker) would be another contradiction. Surely if there was not a lot of cash involved the court would not even be considering backing out of its Sony-Betamax decision. Of course, as supreme beings they can back uot of anything. All that is needed is the fancy wording American courts are known for, and that no two lawyers agree as to their meaning (great to inflate lawyer fees), to justify what was decided. It will also backfire on the American congress who cannot write straight laws that continually need court decicions to establish the law means in a confusing manner. This ia all great to inflate lawyer fees. This time around is the copyright law that need to be revised by the courts to clarify what the word "infringement" means. It will also backfire on the already discredited American court system which is made up of strictly political appointees who continually contradicts themselves. Backing out of the Sony-Betamax decision to favor Hollywood (and ironically Sony this time around as a movie maker) would be another contradiction. Surely if there was not a lot of cash involved the court would not even be considering backing out of its Sony-Betamax decision. Of course, as supreme beings they can back uot of anything. All that is needed is the fancy wording American courts are known for, and that no two lawyers agree as to their meaning (great to inflate lawyer fees), to justify what was decided.

It will also backfire on the American congress who cannot write straight laws that continually need court decicions to establish the law means in a confusing manner. This ia all great to inflate lawyer fees. This time around is the copyright law that need to be revised by the courts to clarify what the word “infringement” means.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655/comment-page-1#comment-8994 Reader's Write Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:30:27 +0000 #comment-8994 Will a favorable (to Hollywood) decision by the Supreme Court backfire? Yes, in MANY WAYS. Some examples: 1. Makers of DVD players, DVD recorder, blank DVDs and television sets may not be able to continue their sales because all of these can be used for significant infringement. Then the biggest market for the motion picture industry will simply dry up. 2. If only file sharing is discriminated against and is prohibited or made impractical through court mandates, and assuming the prohibition is effective, people will turn to DVD burning. Burned DVD are easier to spread around than downloaded movies because most people do not have the capability to download movies. Here is the scenario: Visit your friend to borrow DVD from his/her vast collection of copied movies. Next week you lend your DVDs to your friend. 3. If the rest of the world does not play along with american courts, eventually the american product (movies) will fall in disfavor throughout the world because of politics and bad publicity. Certainly the motion picture and the music industries are in a quandary it logically follows that they would like to protect their interest. I sympathise with that. So were the typewriter makers (and their employees) in a quandaty when the personal computer came along. I sympathised with them too, for they lost all their jobs and investments. Too bad progress cannot be stopped. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com Will a favorable (to Hollywood) decision by the Supreme Court backfire? Yes, in MANY WAYS.

Some examples:

1. Makers of DVD players, DVD recorder, blank DVDs and television sets may not be able to continue their sales because all of these can be used for significant infringement. Then the biggest market for the motion picture industry will simply dry up.

2. If only file sharing is discriminated against and is prohibited or made impractical through court mandates, and assuming the prohibition is effective, people will turn to DVD burning. Burned DVD are easier to spread around than downloaded movies because most people do not have the capability to download movies. Here is the scenario: Visit your friend to borrow DVD from his/her vast collection of copied movies. Next week you lend your DVDs to your friend.

3. If the rest of the world does not play along with american courts, eventually the american product (movies) will fall in disfavor throughout the world because of politics and bad publicity.

Certainly the motion picture and the music industries are in a quandary it logically follows that they would like to protect their interest. I sympathise with that. So were the typewriter makers (and their employees) in a quandaty when the personal computer came along. I sympathised with them too, for they lost all their jobs and investments. Too bad progress cannot be stopped.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655/comment-page-1#comment-8965 Reader's Write Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:21:21 +0000 #comment-8965 grokster?? oh yeah i remember them from the dark ages of p2p grokster?? oh yeah i remember them from the dark ages of p2p

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655/comment-page-1#comment-8961 Reader's Write Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:30:11 +0000 #comment-8961 sound like it to me..... someone better tell the NRA sound like it to me….. someone better tell the NRA

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/3655/comment-page-1#comment-8958 Reader's Write Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:05:04 +0000 #comment-8958 So if the media slime wins this will that mean that gun manufacturers can be held responsible for the crimes commited using their products? Seriously. So if the media slime wins this will that mean that gun manufacturers can be held responsible for the crimes commited using their products?

Seriously.

]]>