Let’s hear it for The Supremes!
p2pnet.net News:- Below are a few well-chosen words on the Supreme Court Grokster v MGM decision from entertainment cartel owners, supporters, and wannabes:
Are you sitting comfortably?
Then we’ll begin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The decision in this case should not be viewed as a defeat for the advancement of technology, but rather a clear victory for the protection of intellectual property and the way that content can be shared with consumers. MusicNet
Today is a good day for music fans and the 17,000 musicians, composers, artists, engineers, producers and songwriters that are the members of the Recording Academy. By unanimously upholding the rights of creators, the Supreme Court has defended an environment for legal online music services to thrive. National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences
“Today a clear and unmistakable message has been sent – that work created by our members deserves the same basic financial protections as every other product in the marketplace. Unauthorized file-swapping of copyrighted material is property theft, plain and simple, and this theft destroys the very protections that allow our members to sustain a career and provide for their families. American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Directors Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild, and Writers Guild of America, west
The DCIA is confident that today’s Supreme Court decision in the MGM v. Grokster case will ultimately lead to the continued expansion of our industry. Kazaa owner Sharman Networks’ Distributed Computing Industry Association
We view today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court as a clear opportunity for the legal system to vindicate Sharman Networks. Sharman Networks
The Recording Artists’ Coalition (RAC) applauds the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Grokster case, establishing clearly for the first time that creators of unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems are liable for contributory copyright infringement if they induce the users of their system to share unauthorized copyrighted music and movie files. Recording Artists’ Coalition
The Supreme Court’s decision is a move in the right direction for both the entertainment industry and online community. Illegal file sharing has harmed the families of millions of workers and artists for far too long. Most musicians who depend on legal downloading are not wealthy mega-celebrities. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today (June 27) is good news indeed for the creative community whose work has been blatantly infringed by illegal file-sharing networks. Broadcast Music Inc
We applaud the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous and unambiguous decision. It sends a clear message from the U.S., which echoes throughout the world, that P2P companies cannot use the creative property of authors, composers, and other rights owners to advance their own businesses at the expense of creators. International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers
With this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has addressed a significant threat to the U.S. economy and moved to protect the livelihoods of the more than 11 million Americans employed by the copyright industries. The Supreme Court has helped to power the digital future for legitimate online businesses – including legal file sharing networks – by holding accountable those who promote and profit from theft. RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)
Today’s unanimous ruling is an historic victory for intellectual property in the digital age, and is good news for consumers, artists, innovation and lawful Internet businesses. The Supreme Court sent a strong and clear message that businesses based on theft should not and will not be allowed to flourish. MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)
And so on and so on …….
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
June 30th, 2005 at 12:19 am
…the Supreme Court has addressed a significant threat to the U.S. economy and moved to protect the livelihoods…
Protect them from what? if anything the artists are just going to be paid the same amount whilst the managers are just going to get a larger back pocket!
as for “protect the livelihoods” – sounds like someone’s after them for a reason
June 30th, 2005 at 12:54 am
Wow. sounds like a great decision. but I thought we were talking about the entertainment industry…. oops it is the industries comments. when did they get religion.
Talk about spin.
Rick
June 30th, 2005 at 1:13 am
“This is a LOSS and its a major one. They remanded the case back down for trial but the court clarified exactly what the lower court can look at and they did it in a strongly worded 9-0 opinion
….This is now a slam dunk case against P2P companies”
I beg to differ. 3 of the justices were absolutely on our side–3 were against us and 3 were in the middle. As many expected, this goes back to the lower court for the facts to be presented in a trial. The Supremes were not pleased that this case made it to them on Summary Judgement. They stated as such in our hearing. I know. I was there. In the meantime we intend to continue the very best P2P software that we can. Morpheus 5 is kicking some serious butt — and it is only a beta.
(from zeropaid.com)
June 30th, 2005 at 3:38 am
*in extreamly sarcastic voice*
OH YEA, THIS SUPREME COURT DECISION IS THE BEST THING THEY’VE DECIDED ON!
*everything I just said here (after the word OH) is the exact opposite of truth, up until this statement.*
June 30th, 2005 at 4:52 am
wonderfull, a ruling not to support and let peacefull and innovative networks flourish but a ruling to increase the profit margins of mega corperations.
iv said it before and il say it again, the supreme court is to outdated for its own good, id be suprised if a third of them had a steady grasp on how p2p actualy works.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:45 am
I guess it is time to write an internet worm that will serve as a bounce proxy for certain p2p networks. Doing this will further confuse the **AA’s as well as give downloaders plausible deniability. If a person unkwoingly has a filesharing virus, he or she did not intentionally download music.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:55 am
Apparently 1/3 of them did, because 1/3 of them were on the “consumer’s” side–that of P2P.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:56 am
And the creator will be tracked down by the FBI and put in prison for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. Great thinking.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:39 am
“The Supreme Court sent a strong and clear message that [i]businesses based on theft[/i] should not and will not be allowed to flourish. MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)”
Uhm, doesn’t that incluse the MPAA?
Roadblock
June 30th, 2005 at 6:42 am
What if they’re in Cuba?
June 30th, 2005 at 7:07 am
I think everyone that has a financial interest in this has given the top a spin. All of them think it good for their own self-interests.
Only thing I can see is that it was sent back to lower court by an unhappy Supreme Court on how things were done. I suspect that those justices that didn’t know how the p2p worked had merely to ask their understudies, interns, or whatever they are called, as assistants.
The megacorporations won’t be happy till the competion is locked away and safely under there control. Anything that resembles a p2 network will be something loaded with DRM and a price tag on each song to be legal by definition that they seek.
I still can’t believe that people are willing to pay a dollar for a 128 bit rate song, much less with DRM included.
June 30th, 2005 at 8:02 am
I’ll give my 2 cents, if I may. Actually, this decision merely paved the way for more litigation. It means that the question won’t be resolved in court before many years yet, during which the economical model of the Big Four will be tested without interference. And if they collapse in the meantime, a court decision won’t do them any good then.
That’s why I think this decision may be pretty shrewd.
June 30th, 2005 at 9:03 am
because of the illegal trade blockade of the US, people in cuba cannot afford a pc.
June 30th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
That is why a non-American will have to write this. Someone in a country with no computer laws will have to be the one who releases it
June 30th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
whats sharman doing on this list? hehehe
June 30th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I like to see them try to sue the ones in the local apartment complex who are on a separate wireless network. Go FreeWan!
June 30th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I see this as a major defeat for the music industry. All sorts of ugly facts are going to come out during the trial.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
ok if a third of them did then why 9-0?
June 30th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Then they americans will claim they are a terrorist and kidnap them.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
It is amazing how the Supreme court rules in favor of giving the cartels “protection” against “pirates” and yet fails to do the same thing for the real property owners. This goes to show you that the government only cares about the property rights of the cartels and the citizens be damned. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be mustering the citizens for a VIOLENT REVOLT!!!!
This shows the hypocrisy of the united states government when it states that it is trying to “Promote freedom” in Iraq and the rest of the world. Why would I want to fight for freedom in the rest of the world when i do not have it here in my own country? I think the Founding Fathers have set a great example, and it may well be time for us to follow their lead.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
ahh… touché
June 30th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
You make an excellent point.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
That is a good question. IMHO the justices stated their opinions for the record, but when it came to the vote, the cartel’s death threats against their family members was what really mattered…
June 30th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Is it just me, or has any body else noticed that these industry press releases NEVER mention the profits that go to the fat-cat-mega-media-corp executives, board members, producers, and stock holders? How much is really left over for the artists & other peon employees down the food chain once the “elite” have taken their cut?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:42 am
You should have asked,’ have you eaten’? How nausiating! Gross! Who ARE these smug, self-satisfied prigs?
Welcome to the new age.
July 1st, 2005 at 6:12 am
5 cents per song