Supreme court rules for MGM
p2pnet.net News:- It’s third time lucky for the major music, movie and software cartels as the US Supreme Court rules for them in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v Grokster, 04-480.
“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,” wrote Justice David H. Souter for the court.
But the battle between the huge multi-billion-dollar international conglomerates and independent commercial developers is by no means ended.
The Supreme Court has tossed the case back to the same lower court that originally ruled for Grokster and StreamCast Networks.
What will the decision mean in real terms?
Cartel-owned organizations such as the MPAA, RIAA and BSA will, of course, now have extra ammunition in their sue ‘em all marketing efforts against their customers. But some US technos, worried they’ll be sued before they’ve even started, may decide to move elsewhere, depriving America of valuable resources.
File sharing will continue unabated with indie p2p app developers continuing to create p2p programs for people around the world.
Nor will the decision do anything to halt the activities of the true villains – the technologically advanced international criminal counterfeiters. They’ll continue to mass-produce fake and duplicate underground product while the corporations they’re robbing will keep on railing against file sharers, whose activities have little, if any, effect on sales.
In the meanwhile, The Supremes’ ruling impacts the US only. What, if any, effect it will have on p2p development in the rest of the world remains to be seen.
Go here for a .pdf of the ruling, or here for a 313 kB zip file containing the Court’s opinion and the concurrences by Justices Ginsberg and Breye (thanks, Thad).
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
June 27th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
This is worst thing ever for MPAA/RIAA they just dont know what they have just done. It bad news for them.
First DO NOT buy any products from MGM or UA.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
How much longer must this stuff go on before the uprising against the government of the P.S.A. starts? The P.S. no longer protects the right of private property ownership, it no longer protects the free speech rights of software coders, and it longer honors the right of Americans to be secure from unreasonable saerch and seizures. What rights do people trapped in the P.S.A. have? The P.S.A.’s government is not now much different than that of Red China.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Sorry but what is P.S.A. or P.S. all about?
June 27th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
How will this effect Big Champagne’s statistics ?
File sharing may take a new path, whereby, statistical information will now longer be reliable.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Police States of America – PSA
June 27th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
I cannot say that this wasn’t a suprize. The court specifically ruled not on the technology itself, but on the conduct of the business that provided the technology. Granted the spin of p2pnet, and the dilusional attitude of a number of individuals who post here, one would think that this is the end of the world. But, as such as it is, it is far from it. In fact, the 1984 Sony Betamax ruling is preserved, for the most part.
What this ruling does is focus on the business practices of technology companies. They didn’t rule that filesharing itself is illegal per say, they ruled that the companies who provided filesharing software and also actively promoted copyright infringement using said software were to be held liable.
The way that I read this, people like Brahm Conon(sp?) who write filesharing software but do not promote copyright infringement in any way cannot be held liable for the copyright infringement of the users. But, companies like Grokster, Streamcast, and Sherman Networks, can be held liable because they infact promote their users to commit copyright infringement.
Read the PDF and draw your own conclusions. I think the ruling was made in the name of common sense to strike a balance between the rights of technology companies and copyright owners.
Peace.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Bram Cohen is the BT genius – not Brahm Conon.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
To celebrate this : an new version of Azureus (2.3.04) has been released, grab it while it’s legal
Really the supreme court has just cut the pear in two (as we say in french), they don’t say that p2p apps should disappear only that you can’t promote them by saying “hey you can download all the movie/music/etc you want with our program”, it’s just one more step in legalese hypocrisy.
And of course this doesn’t “kill” usenet/ftp/http downloads at all, not to mention people giving stuff directly to their friends as has always happened even before the net…
June 27th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Goodbye TCP/IP, goodbye computers, goodbye ipods, goodbye anything that can transmit a 1 and a zero. Goodbye cruel world, i’m leaving you today, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye….
I’m sorry but this is all vague utter bullshit. The ISPs advertise that you’ll be able to do the same things, now their going to be liable, and my ISP could get knocked with lawsuits denying me of broadband, or jumping the rate intensly. Http/ftp could get knocked because, i mean honestly, there has to be some “easy” to introduce steps to make sure that copyrighted content doesn’t get shared. Shit, goodbye SAMBA/MS file sharing service, since it can’t detect if its sharing copyrighted material or not, whats stopping me from sharing my content on a VPN, or *gasp* sharing access to my cdrom drive. I’m not sure what business owns what, and if technology standards can get hit with this, but if it can, goodbye cruel world. I love america, with all that freedom and justice for all, especially with our pay to play legal system. I can’t wait til to see what our so called “Moral Majority” can come up with next. I think just about every internet protocol got put on the hit list with this. And especially since everything within the past 100 years is copyrighted until 2050, which will get extended anyway, especially since disney gets really pissed about everyone using mickey mouse without them knowing about it. Why they care about someone making a ripoff mickey holding a bong, is beyond me anyway. I think they’re all making a living just fine, with or without people ripping them off. Who really needs to make more than 200k a year anyway.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
The Court ruling for MGM – No surprise
The Court ruling for the Cable cartels – No surprise
The Court refusing to protect free press – Again, no surprise
This is exactly what kind of government to expect when you have so called political hacks in office promoting themselves as either “Democrats” or “Republicans.” I mean, what the hell does that mean? Is a “Republican” any better friend to the Constitution than a “Democrat?” I surely say NO!!!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004782.php
Look at the above URL. This should give you an idea as to why Bush is not railing against this treasonous ruling. Bush duped the moral people in the United States into voting for him because he supposedly was against “gay marriage.” Bush has appointed more homosexuals to public office than any other president. Please keep in mind that I am not preaching for or against homosexuals in this article. I’m just pointing out the utter hypocrisy of this man.
We all know that Bill Clinton was an enemy to this country as well. Despite bashing Bush on his China policy in 1990, he open the doors to more Chinese imports than any other president. That man was responsible for so many of our jobs moving overseas. Clinton is the same one responsible for handing over vital defense data to the Chinese as well. His actions regarding government abuse of power in the murders of 80 men women and chilren is reprehensible.
Because people are afraid of “wasting their vote” for someone who might actually protect their rights, they continue to vote for the “Lessor of Two Evils.” This is why we who live in the Police States of America will continue to lose more and more protections of our rights.
Because Americans are too scared to try to vote for real change, the power-hungry members of the political cartel will continue to nibble away at the protection of our rights. It will be very very soon where we will not be able to tell the difference between the government of these united states of America or red China. The day is coming very soon. I just wish I was not trapped here.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
We will need to make 200k a year pretty soon just to keep up with all this government mandated consumption, taxes, fees, assessment, and such. This is because people continue to refuse to look at alternative parties such as the Constitution or Libertarian parties. As far as I can see, freedom in America is finished. It is finished because the average American is too lazy to get off his duff to reclaim their rights. Americans go out of their way to avoid jury duty. They insist on voting the enemies of their freedom into power. They continue to be brainwashed by all the promises of polititions while these polititions spend 100 of millions of special interest money on their campaigns.
If I were ever selected for jury duty, the first thing I would do is look at http://www.fija.org to refresh my memory as to what rights I have as a juror. I would listen to the evidence presented as well as look at the fairness and constitutionality of the law the defendant is accused of violating. If I find that the law is unconstitutional, unfair, or that the defendent was not allowed to present any argument that he or she wanted, then I would vote not giulty and stick to my decision. Yes, I would ignore any instruction that forbade me from determining the constitutionality or fairness of a law.
If a piece of property was taken by a local government for the private use of another party, I would vote not guilty if the defendent shot people in defense of his property. I would encourage others to do the same. The power of a jury is still one of the very last rights we are allowed to excercise. USE IT. Unfortunately, I will not get to use that right myself, because I registerd to vote as a member of an alternative party.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Finally, a refreshing teaspoon of sanity. Sorry kids, if your business model requires illegal activity, you should be held responsible, it’s as simple as that.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
We’re not all making a good living you jerk. Do some research into the business before you make asanine claims like that.
I play on about 200 sessions a year, and a lot of them are backloaded and based directly on sales. If you listen to top-40 radio in the last 20 years you have heard my work, and I average about 80 grand a year. Doesn’t sound too bad, but try living in LA on that.
I have recently returned to lawschool however, for two reasons. One, I desire to make more than 200K a year, and 2, to sue the crap out of people like you.
Out
June 27th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
“I have recently returned to lawschool however, for two reasons. One, I desire to make more than 200K a year, and 2, to sue the crap out of people like you.”
Spoken like a true bottom-feeder-to-be
June 27th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
So your saying TIVO, VHS, CD-R, DVD-R, and so on should in fact be illegal. Um, Hollywood VS Betamax.
Oh, and remember, this decision won’t affect most of our activities.
PZ!
June 27th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Nope, I’ll be making an honest living, unlike the folks at Grokster who make their living on the backs of musicians like me.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Wow, your head is so full of worthless rhetoric that you can’t even pay attention to the issues.
Tivo is borderline, and it is being dealt with right now. Some aspects of it, like the ability to cut commercials, may well be illegal. Remember too, the commercials pay the bills. If TIVO is a huge success, your cable bill will go up to $200 a month or more.
As to VHS, do you truly believe that making one copy is the same as making millions? Come on, you can disagree, but try doing so in an intellectually honest manner.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
what the hell were they thinking when they ruled that we can’t make software, if it has the chance to be used for illegal activity! >_> fuck that!
This rulling wont stand!
If we don’t want this (who would) only thing to do is get involved… send letters, protest… all that kind of stuff…
and if that don’t work, there’s always violence! The RIAA and MPAA keep pushing, someones gonna push back soon… and its not gonna be pretty… Could be your average p2p sharer, or it could be the homeless parents of a child sued for sharing his favorite music… but it will happen if they don’t stop taking away our freedoms!
June 27th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
OK, chill. They did not rule that. They ruled that if the raison d’etre was illegal activity, they can be held responsible. THere is no real reason for Grokster other than breaking the law.
Further, this ruling will stand, it has to. America’s number one export is entertainment, and it must be protected.
Oh, and by the way, no freedoms are involved here. You don’t have the freedon to steal what I have created. So go ahead, push back, my side has the guns and badges.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
I work for myself, I am an independent studio musician, who was trying to get by on royalty payments until I went to law school last year.
June 27th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
I will pay your way. Choose which country you wish to live in, and I will take up a collection to buy you a one way ticket there. I mean it.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
It will have absolutely no effect on Kazaa (Vanuatu), Isohunt (Canada), thepiratebay (Sweden), or any of the other non-US filesharing organisations. Grokster and Morpheus are insignificant anyway.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
This isn’t necessarily so. Companies can be held liable for damages done in the United States if they “projected that harm” into the country. If US users use these services, then at least theoretically US courts can get jurisdiction, since they are hypothetically affecting US sales.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
America’s number one export is entertainment.
I thought it was death, despair and destruction.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
uh…yeah. I hope you were joking. If so, good one. If not, please read. Anything.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
they did not rule FOR mgm…
this was precisely what was predicted by the most informed in the supreme court:
SCOTUS merely tossed it back to the 9th district and said to judge it on weater or not grokster actively marketed it’s p2p based on it’s infringing use.
read public knowledge interpretations:
“Today’s Court decision in the Grokster case underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted — punish infringers, not technology. The Court has sent the case back to the trial court so that the trial process can determine whether the defendant companies intentionally encouraged infringement. What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law. The Court also acknowledged, importantly, that there are lawful uses for peer-to-peer technology, including distribution of electronic files ‘by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.’
“The Court is clearly aware that any technology-based rule would have chilled technological innovation. That is why their decision today re-emphasized and preserved the core principle of Sony v. Universal City Studios — that technology alone can’t be the basis of copyright liability — and focused clearly and unambiguously on whether defendants engaged in intentional acts of encouraging infringement. The Court held expressly that liability for providing a technological tool such as the Grokster file-sharing client depends on ‘clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.’ What this means is, in the absence of such clear expression or other affirmative acts fostering infringement, a company that provides peer-to-peer technology is not going to be secondarily liable under the Copyright Act.”
June 27th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
I was gonna guess Propaganda States of Ameerika
June 27th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Now the Nith Circuit court has a minor problem: How to calculate the damages caused by Grokster’s infringement.
The minimum statutory damages is $700 per each infringed song (double that if the infringement is intentional). The maximum is $150,000 per song. A song infringed 1,000 tiems counts as one.
An alternative to the statutory damages is actual damages.
The problem is where is the court going to get the PER SONG number or the actual damages?
Also, after Grokster gets the lawyer bills, will they have any money to pay?
Does anyone have an idea?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 27th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
no it’s legal threats
June 27th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
I was going to say (write) almost exactly what you did.
Thanks for saving me the trouble.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Fred says this is not a ruling for the studios, and it does not undermine betamax.
full commentary here:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003749.php
June 27th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
America’s number one export is george w bush
June 27th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
i will chip in too
June 27th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Trying to get by on royalty payments? and you complain some downloaders are screwing you? guess the recording industry feels better to get screwed by, maybee they use more vasoline. if you’re royalties come from the recording industry you are not truely an independent. Also if one VCR recording is ok and a million are not, where is the cut off. how many is ok before it becomes wrong.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
you’d better start doing some REAL research.
you can begin reading the comments here: http://p2pnet.net/story/5313
then you’re on you’re own.
beware of anyone here offering to collect money for you. they’ll do a LOKI in a New York minute.
BTW, you can’t just “move” to another country – unless it’s a colony or governed by the usa laws.
there are legal ways of moving overseas, but you have to do the research yourself.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
This is just great.
I just thought how to make lots of money.
First draw a stick man. Put it down on a desk, then walk away. See if anyone then copys it using Photoshop. Then sue Adobe as didn’t stop this copying from happing.
Easy money.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
no, many of them have wanted to export him for a while now. No one else will take him.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
News just in “Man found Im MoLAA Musem of Latin American Art Taking Pictures using his Motorola camra phone Motorola up for 2.5bn fine for allowing there device to break CopyRight.
How stuppid would this be, but this soon could be reality
June 27th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
I believe the ruling says that motorola is liable only if they sold the phone using the abilty to take pictures of copyrighted images as a marketing point.
hmmm, guess small camera’s with spy in the name are now liable for treason or IP theft if they are used to commit these crimes. (how the theft of any idea is theft is beyond me, but you get the idea).
June 28th, 2005 at 1:12 am
“A song infringed 1,000 tiems counts as one.”
I don’t thinnk so.
If 1,000 different downloaders downloaded a single song, each act is a separate and distinct infringement (because the downloader was different), for which Grokster will be responsible.
Here we are talking about billions of infringements, under the wild theory upheld by the Supreme Court, that downloading a copyrighted work is infringement.
Ridiculous as it may seem, my numbers tell me that the damage award for plaintiffs will be in the order of many billions (1,000 x 1,000,000) of dollars.
You are right, Grokster will not pay anything.
June 28th, 2005 at 1:22 am
And that is your legal right too.
It’s called Jury Nullification.
It is a constitutional right meant as a check/balance to
offset too much power of the courts.
This is true, Google it.
Judges tell you you MUST be lemmings, and lawyers are NOT PERMITTED to explain this right. This has been going on so long that most folks are unaware that it IS a right.
Spread the word, as far as possible ……
and ask for a Jury Trial.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Y HELO THAR SUPERSTAR!
DRAMA MUCH?
If you stop recording music, maybe it’s for the better.
Top-40 radio is for dumb shit commercial artists anyway.
June 28th, 2005 at 5:30 am
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003754.php
“The Court also leaves open precisely what the remedy is if one is found to have actively induced infringement.
Here, too, the relationship to patent law may be relevant. In that context, the appropriate remedy has not included forbidding distribution of the defendant’s technology. Rather, the remedies have prohibited the ongoing, present misconduct found to be actively inducing infringement.”
……
“The Court also leaves open precisely what the remedy is if one is found to have actively induced infringement.
Here, too, the relationship to patent law may be relevant. In that context, the appropriate remedy has not included forbidding distribution of the defendant’s technology. Rather, the remedies have prohibited the ongoing, present misconduct found to be actively inducing infringement. “”
June 28th, 2005 at 5:33 am
So I guess they’ll have to go with actual damages….. hmmm so $5/month*number of users dl copyrighted songs*#months occured over= still a lot of money…. but then when most of the “infringments” were “induced” the lrgal dl systems were not available so I guess it’s
$0 *number of users dl copyrighted songs*#months occured
June 28th, 2005 at 6:17 am
Ive never used morpheus or Grokester (sp?) but it doesnt matter if they can take them down they can take them all down and when theyr back we’ll end up with more shitty napster clones that are the RIAA’s bitches. Soon all music will cost money P2P and warez will be meaningless and people who cant afford software and music will give up computers causing an end to the digital age its all just a matter of time….
and to that little ass hole lawyer musician if i’ve heard your work who the f*ck are you? besides the RIAA’s little bitch boy. P2P helps independent artists get heard, and you probobly suck so they only person that would share your music is you and your little lawyer freinds.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:38 am
first you’d have to copywrite it and put an advisory warning and copy protection on the paper.
then if someone cracks your protection and copies, you can sue them, adobe, xerox, canon, hp/compaq and every company that makes/has ever made photocopiers, printers, ink cartridges and toner modules, and paper.
have fun.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
The court decided against Grokster because they induced “infringement” through the use of words.
What would have happenned if another, competing p2p system were a much greater inducement to “infringe” because of its speed and ease of use?
Does this means that software/internet speed and ease of use induce and are thus illegal for p2p?
I think the court barked up the wrong tree. What it had to decide first was if it was legal or fair use for a downloader to copy a song once for presumed personal use, from any source, to any medium.
To resume, the court decided nothing in favor of anyone, except lawyers who will profit from the uncertainties left in place. We are back to square one.
Rafael Venegas
http//www.gvenegas.com
June 28th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Well what did MGM win, err nothing!
What did this case cost MGM, to much!
If this court case was advertising I dont even want to know how much the air time would of cost, pages of print media, lots of Internet action as well. I guess if Grokster was going to do this level advertising it would of cost them about $400 Million!
Well done MGM, thanks for the free add’s! We could of never of done it with out your.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
ads – not “adds” (this is a verb, not a noun)
would have/would’ve – not “would of” (doesn’t exist)
could have/could’ve – not “could of” (doesn’t exist)
June 28th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Or Private States Of America
June 28th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
I am still looking for a country that actually protects the God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Unfortuately, there are none
The countries that are rated as being more free than the Police States of America have immigration policies that prevent me from migrating. Oh, I long fro the day when the people stand up to the Government and force them to start honoring our rights. It can be done if we stop listening to the Democrat-Republican propaganda and start thinking for ourselves.
I strongly recommend first procuring a food source that is not dependent on the cartels and government. One way that this can be done is by spreading native plants that are edible, if you live in the country or the suburbs. another way is by learning what native plants are edible. Once food (and water) sources are secured, then we can start doing what is needed to regain our freedom.
1. We should stop buying anything that is not necessary for maintaining life or freedom. The cartels depend on use to stay in power, quit feeding them!
2. We need to stop voting for most members of the Democrat-Republican party. Out of all of them, Ron Paul is about the only member deserving of his position.
3. Browse the website, http://www.fija.org and learn about the power you have as a juror. If called to jury duty, use this power to strike down unconstitutional or unjust laws, and the power of overbearing judges. Tell others about http://www.fija.org and pass out cards referring peop-le to http://www.fija.org
4. Rather than worrying about burning draft cards, we should first burn our “Social Security” cards. If 25% of the people refuse to be identified by their “Social Security” number and give a number not assigned to them by the government when prodded for one, it would cause HUGE problems for the government.
These are about the only things I can safely say that we can do.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
It is nice to see another person in this forum doing research and spreading the word. Thanks!!!
June 28th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
If I share music, I only make a minimum number of copies. It is just the same as if I buy a grape vine and make a cutting for a friend. Why is that legal and my “making a cutting” of music not? It is the same damned thing. A grape vine is produce with the instructions contained in DNA. When crossbreeding accours, these instructions are modified. Nobody has the right to stop people from propagating what they have bought or what was given to them.
The **AA’s, the monsantos and other cartels would like you to believe that they do, though. They even purchase legislation to prevent people from using and giving away what is rightfully theirs. The bought and paid for legislators in turn appoint judges that do their bidding. What has been stolen is the protection of people’s rights.
I am all for the limited right of copyright so that creators of beneficial (not smut) works can recover the cost of creation and even make a profit. What I am totally against is the abuse of the copyright privilege that is happening today. Because of unlimited copyright, works that should have made it to the public domain years ago are still being held hostage by the cartels. The cartels are even given the power to enforce these abusive copyright laws by their bought and paid for legislatures and judges.
It is no wonder that filesharing is so rampant. I know that I will not pay $16 for a cd with one good song on it from a band that last performed in the 1980’s. Now that the **AA’s are so rabid when it comes to suing people, I will not support them in any way if I can help it. I have cancelled my cable TV subscription and turned on my DSL. I can get my music and movies this way
When the **AA’s and their legislatures stop suing customers and return to reasonable copyright laws, then I will gladly return to the stores for their product.
The cartels and government had better start paying attention to and servicing the desires of the people before they push the people into a full scale revolt. The first part of the revolt is the use of technology to bypass the stores. Who knows what will be the next stages. I can imagine though, that it will not be pretty.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
We can now imagine these dialogues:
INTERNET CONNECTION SALESPERSON TO CUSTOMER:
Salesperson: We offer you the fastest connection by far. Why you can download a 20 gigabyte file in a few minutes.
Customer: What is a 20 gigabyte file?
Saleperson: That is a high definition movie file.
Customer: But I heard that downloading movies files are ilegal.
Saleperson: Not if they are old movies that are in the public domain, like the Charlie Chaplin ones.
Customer: But you said I could download high definition movie files. Did you not?
Saleperson: Look I am not a lawyer and thus cannot explain anything about movie downloading without inducing you to download 20 gigabyte movies that you can download with our connection.
Customer: I understand fully. I will subscribe.
PHOCOPIER SALESPERSON TO CUSTOMER:
Saleperson: You can use this latest machine to automatically copy The Bible in 10 minutes.
Cutomer: Look, I am not interested in copying old book. How about the latest book? Will it copy that too? I need 20 copies of one of those, for the students in my literature class.
Salesperson: Sorry but that is a legal question I cannot answer because that book is surely copyrighted and by saying yes I will be inducing you to copy the book and the courts have said I cannot do that. I sugget that you consult your lawyer first.
Customer: I understand. I will buy the machine.
VHS RECORDER SALEPERSON TO CUSTOMER
Customer: I need to buy 10 VHS recorders and 5,000 blank VHS tapes.
Salesperson: May I ask, why do you need so many recorders and tapes?
Customer: I will be moving to an area where there is no English speaking television. I want to take a huge collection of recorded tapes so I can watch television there. Can I connect the 10 recorders to my cable line?
Saleperson: Sorry, that is a legal question we cannot answer. Have you heard about the Grokster case? Grokster told others what they could do, and they were sued. We are not going to make the same mistake. Which VHS recorder model would you care to buy?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 28th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
My side has guns too, and lots of training. Filesharing is not stealing. As far as exports are concerned, America use to have plenty of things to export until the Multinational Corporations decided that is would be better to make the same products off the backs of slave labor. The Multinationals then purchased NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, and other “Free Trade” agreements so that they can continue to plunder the labor of men women and children in third world countries who do not have a voice in their government.
I believe that the entertainment cartels are also fuelling much of the Anti-American sentiment going on in the world today. When people around the wold see Jerry Springer, Fear Factor, and many other shows on TV featuring depravity, violence and unbridles free for all, they tend to think that is how all of america is like. They see this as Democracy. This is why many are afraid of “Democracy” coming to their shores. They do not want to see their sons become ‘gangstas’ or their daughters become “trailer trash whores.” They then see the President of the United States telling them that the war in Iraq is a ‘moral’ war. The United States of America is seen as the world’s biggest hypocrit.
Fortunately, this is not the mentality of all Americans. I for one, can do without all the smut that is played on the radio or on TV. I definitely do not believe that the companies that produce most of this trash should have the unlimited copyright protection that they do now. Yes, they have the right to free speech, and I will do what I can to protect that, but they do not have the right to hide behind copyright law to protect their smut empire. The original intent of the copyright law was for limted protection of the creator of a BENEFICIAL work.
A previous commentator stated that we may start pushing back. Another person stated that they may go ahead and push back, we have guns and badges. Well the side pushing back has guns as well. If abuses of the people go unchecked, then the badges may not mean much to those pushing back. A line in the sand is being drawn, it is a line that separates the freedom loving people all over the world who are getting fed up with being pushed around and the cartel-controlled governments, police, and armies of the world.
Right now, people are using technology to push back, those who create and extend technology for the people instead of the cartels are called “hackers.” It is no wonder that the cartel-controlled media wishes to portray hackers as those who break into computers and steal information. If the truth be known, hackers (as well as privately owned firearms) may be the ones who give the people the edge to reclaim their freedom.
June 28th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
So the raison d’etre for automatic guns is what? hunting? I think not. They are for committing crimes, but I guess that doesn’t count because in that battle the gun lobby has more money.
He who has more money ownes the law.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Thanks. I couldn’t remember how to spell the guys name.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
But, before this can happen, the companies mentioned have to “induce” you to commit copyright infringment. I don’t see that happening.l
June 28th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
“If I share music, I only make a minimum number of copies. It is just the same as if I buy a grape vine and make a cutting for a friend. Why is that legal and my “making a cutting” of music not? It is the same damned thing. A grape vine is produce with the instructions contained in DNA. When crossbreeding accours, these instructions are modified. Nobody has the right to stop people from propagating what they have bought or what was given to them.”
I’ve had this conversation with you before. DNA is a natural resource can cannot be copyrighted, patented, etc. Yes, there are patents out there, but they deal with the specific uses for drug research, not for theintended use of DNA which is life.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
tell that to the farmer in Canada that got sued for having a patented crop in his field that he hadn’t paid the patent owner for.
His claim was the seeds had blown off a neighbors field onto his own. The judge determined he had to pay the patent owner because he had grown the plant (wheat I think but I might be wrong)
June 28th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
well the photocopier at work has a illistration on the side showing how to place a book for photocpying. It’s “inducing” me (by showing me how to) make illegal copies of a book. Can I sue them then?
June 28th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
if you live in america, you can sue anybody.
but i think in your case, random house and other book publishers should be the ones to sue the copy machine manufacturer.
and they in turn will sue you.
June 29th, 2005 at 7:43 am
I mean — I have gone out and bought CD’s after hearing MP3’s just because I wanted the actual CD’s.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
if you openly defy a judge’s orders, you will go to jail and/or be fined.
good luck with that idea.
June 29th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
in my university, the book store was required to have a copy machine and to allow students to copy – for free (except for the copy charges) – as many pages/chapters from a book as they wanted when they needed them so they wouldn’t have to be forced to buy the book. university books are damn expensive and not always available used.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
you all miss the point completely and your illusionary view of what you consider to be “freedom” is nothing less than a “all free for me please” mentality
June 29th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
yes. free is good. greed is bad.
free is good for the economy. it allows people to save money in banks, or to buy other non-free necessary things for life – like health insurance and food.
keep p2p free!
June 29th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
“I work for myself, I am an independent studio musician, who was trying to get by on royalty payments until I went to law school last year.”
*****
so, your future job will be to sue the people you wanted to attract?
nice.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
damaging an investment is a bad thing, you all like Britney Spears right (otherwise you wouldn’t download her songs so much). just imagine what your world would be like without her
June 29th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
a world without britney spears?
omigod! life would then be worth living – at least mildly bearable.
do away with mandy moore and paris hilton too, and then we have utopia!
June 29th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
That’s Canada, not the US. If the plant was genetically engineered or modified, then they might have a point. Personally, I don’t see that happening in the US…yet….
June 29th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
A lawyer making an honest living? Now how’s that for an oxymoronic statement?
June 29th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
america company doing the suing…so don’t think it won’t happen
June 29th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Do you know what company it was? That is why these companies need to leave well enough alone. For generations, farmers have taken part of the crop harvest to use as seed for the next planting. Companies cannot stop this no matter what they try. It’s one thing to be a profiteering bottom feeder, it’s quite different if it’s messing with the food supply. There will be a revolt if they do.
June 29th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Just did a quick search and found this. I had read about it in one of the Canadian newspapers at one time.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/12/schmeiser.html
June 29th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
that’s right. they induce p2p.
they force people to use p2p programs to get what they want for free because they are unable – or unwilling – to pay for rentals like itunes/napster, etc.
they induce people to turn to p2p because they are unable – or unwilling – to pay the exhorbitantly extortionate high prices for cds, dvds and cinema tix.
they induce people to turn to p2p for tv shows which take months or years – if at all – to reach their homes via broadcast tv. as well as inconvenient availability and distribution timetables for dvds of tv shows and movies and region coding (which itself is ridiculous).
the reason p2p is popular is because the cartels induce people to use them.
it’s their own fault.
someone should sue them for inducement.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:06 am
The ninth circuit was completely off base about what substantial non-infringing uses really means… The Betamax case wasn’t a blank check to steal copyrighted material…
The fight isn’t over… now all the P2P crooks need to be sued out of business!!!! And all the individual music pirates along with them!!!
Long Live American Music!!! Die Pirates Die!!!
June 30th, 2005 at 2:29 am
Not an Idea,
A right guaranteed by the constitution.
A judge can jail me if they wish, the judgement can be challenged as unconstitutional. No Risk, No gain.
If we all bend before the almighty law without question,
we deserve to take it in the ass.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:41 am
Dear Ms. Justice O’connor:
I hope that was tongue-in-cheek. otherwise, you have a warped sinse of humour and distorted reality.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:05 am
nice:)
June 30th, 2005 at 4:53 am
Personally I think Britney is tolerable. What about Adam Sandler? If P2P conyinues will we never see any “work” by Adam again. I think it would be worth making a list of the good things and possible results of P2P.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:15 am
It hardly matters what this yoyo thinks on the Betamax case. To be honest the latest greatest is of no interest to me. The price for the product is simply to great and I desire nothing that has come out recently in offerings. Radio isn’t a place to hear anything new. Since p2p was a place to hear new stuff, that is for all intents and purposes gone, just a matter of time. However, because there is now no place to hear new stuff, there also isn’t going to be much of a market for someone trying to break out. Can’t be heard, can’t get a fan base.
Since most of what I hear passing for music these days is crap, that works for me. No money from me for the music at all. I will find other stuff to do but it won’t be listening to music I haven’t heard. Rather I have an extensive library of music I purchased long ago. I made a backup of it all to reel to reel and still listen to it. Best of luck for the yoyo that thinks this spells financial success for him. All it does in my opinion is lock up the market and I don’t want any part of it.
No sale here!