If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SCOTUSBlog) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules 9-0 against file-sharing company Grokster, for MGM   (scotusblog.com) divider line 588
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

20266 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2005 at 11:13 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

588 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-06-27 03:19:05 PM
But this is OK

 
2005-06-27 03:21:29 PM
Luckily I just download mixtapes. These are completely legal

Huh? So long as you don't take the whole album it's cool?
 
2005-06-27 03:24:35 PM
If you like the music enough to actually want to listen to it many times, buy the product. Downloading seems to become an obsession like Pokemon. It seems just as pointless. If you want what's popular just listen to the radio. Another thing, it's ridiculous that someone can't run a club or restaurant without having to pay for the rights to the music they play unless they use a home stereo setup. Music isn't for the people anymore. It's just something to push onto people like drugs.
 
2005-06-27 03:25:46 PM
What if I legitimately buy a cd and somebody steals it from me. Is it okay for me to download the cd and make a replacement cd, or am i forced to buy a whole new cd?
 
2005-06-27 03:26:00 PM
LarsThorwald:

Why am I even coming into a Greenlit thread to argue with an HVAC guy and an admitted sexually pent-up professional stoner to argue nuances of copyright law?

Ha! I don't think anyone is even close to *nuances*! Instead, there are a lot of Chewbacca-like arguments that claim that copyright is wrong or doesn't exist. Like:
1) Making a copy is OK because it's not really taking anything away from anyone. (I guess if a concert / movie theater / airline flight doesn't sell out, the unsold seats are "free?")
2) The technology exists to do it, so it's OK.
3) People steal other stuff, so it's OK.
4) I think they charge too much.
5) Copyrights are wrong because it would make it illegal to use a matter replicator on a laptop. (Yes, this one's up there!)

You are nuts to try to argue against this kind of blather.
 
2005-06-27 03:30:26 PM
Hey im an 8 year old with no guardian, let me know what you want and i will download it for you...


I got nothing.
 
2005-06-27 03:38:16 PM
All IP law should do is prevent unauthorized parties from SELLING (that's spelled S-E-L-L-I-N-G) the protected item. Selling. Like, for money.

Oh well.

They can't demonstrate how file sharing causes them any financial damage whatsoever, and no one has cared to make them produce such proof. Why? Because corporations run our country. They write our laws.

So much for privacy, or the burden of proof. Our freedoms don't finance campaigns, so I guess we'll only see more of our liberties disappear. Very, very depressing.
 
2005-06-27 03:38:36 PM
Lars

I was a HVAC guy before I became a lawyer. HVAC guys are usually the smartest of the working poor, especially if they are of the "contracting" variety and not the "maintenance man" variety.
 
2005-06-27 03:40:35 PM
LocalCynic,

I knew this already but as I see it, not buying their music CD's is more to the point of what I'm trying to protest. I agree that boycotting should be "all encompassing" of the offenders products, but were I to boycott those other items, legit companies who do not share the same views of the RIAA would suffer in the PR / "word of mouth" kind of ways. Beyond that, can you tell me a site that helps me find out which blank CD sales do not line the RIAA's pockets. If you know of one, I'll start using it. ;-)

I don't really care if the RIAA continues to exist or not, I just want them to know that as a consumer, I do not condone thier actions as it regards to CD sales, nor thier draconian use of government to enforce thier greed.
 
2005-06-27 03:40:42 PM
LarsThorwald

You're my new favorite farker. In addition to posting threats that are genuinely menacing, your arguments about the mintuae of copyright law is insightful.

All that on top of Maryland pride.

*applause*

/downloads music off the internet
//knows it's illegal, too
///doesn't care
 
2005-06-27 03:42:09 PM
All IP law should do is prevent unauthorized parties from SELLING

Except if you give someone's product away that same person will not buy it. Giving it away is just as bad.

They can't demonstrate how file sharing causes them any financial damage whatsoever

How can it not hurt them? If one person chooses not to buy an album because he got it for free or didn't buy it because he DL'd a couple tracks and it sucked then the company is injured.
 
2005-06-27 03:42:50 PM
FallingKnife

You left out the Chewbacca defenses for absolute property rights:

1) Intellectual property is exactly the same as physical property and therefore should be eternal.
2) Copyright is designed to protect creativity - the latest nu metal band or tween idol needs these rights to ensure that their manufactured music reaches the hands of millions of sheepish fans.
3) Every pirated work is a lost sale, because markets are inelastic.
4) The only way to bring certainty to markets is to allow certain property holders to sue people.

Those who want to obliterate intellectual property are misguided, but let's not kid ourselves, there are terribly bad legal arguments for expanding these rights as well. The beauty needs to be in the balance, and the court tried to do that today. How much it will help is questionable.
 
2005-06-27 03:42:59 PM
FallingKnife

"I guess if a concert / movie theater / airline flight doesn't sell out, the unsold seats are "free?"

If the seats are farther away (hence lower sound-quality) and don't come with comfy seats and refreshments (like a song without the artwork/liner notes/enhancements) then, yeah, those should be free. People who care will still pay to get a better seat.
 
2005-06-27 03:47:21 PM
JURY NULLIFICATION

/if the law itself is unjust, all parties are not guilty.
 
2005-06-27 03:47:22 PM
On a side note, it wouldn't surprise me if file sharing networks begin to bottom out as they get harder to use. It's damned near impossible to use Fasttrack or Gnutella without downloading files that have been wrapped to only work in certain players or that have adware. If the pricepoint is right, people will buy movies and music online. There are some people (like myself) who prefer high quality digital music. Said people will likely buy the physical media. But most people will download from commercial online services if they're easy to use and have good selection. The iTMS has certainly proved this.
 
2005-06-27 03:49:43 PM
danlpoon

Except if you give someone's product away that same person will not buy it.

Fortune telling; assumption. I have downloaded 20 mp3s, and have as a direct result of liking what I heard bought 5 CDs which I might not have otherwise bought, because I despaired of finding any other way to test the quality of a product.

How can it not hurt them? If one person chooses not to buy an album because he got it for free or didn't buy it because he DL'd a couple tracks and it sucked then the company is injured.

More fortune telling, with a little psychic action thrown in. Sweet!
 
2005-06-27 03:52:00 PM
owtytrof

I know about GIMP. The problem is that I would not benefit from using it simply because it is not Photoshop. That would be fine for most people, but as a graphic artist, it's absolutley mandatory that I work in the proper format. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to open my layered images at school. If I were working with a client, they would likely want to see a .psd if they wanted to edit it. If I were doing this art thing for my own amusement, I'd run GIMP in a heartbeat.

Yes, a law is being broken, but that's all it sums up to in this case. I'm really not trying to advocate breaking the law, but I think situations where no one party loses (or never could have benefitted at all) should be at least mentioned, or even somewhat taken into account in these cases. That's why I posted my scenario.

Of course, it's impossible for the law to be able to distinguish between the type of pirates that are too poor to afford what they're downloading, and the pirates that could easily afford it but choose not to. It'd be nice if it could, though. I do say, if you have the money, buy it. If you don't, you have to pray that you have a viable alternative.

/currently using a legal copy of Photoshop that my tuition paid for
 
2005-06-27 03:57:31 PM
The only thing that keeps Microsoft Windows and every other networking software legal in this decision is the phrase "affirmative steps to foster infringement"... I love the vague language... who decides what software is fostering copyright infringement and which is legitimate networking software?
 
2005-06-27 04:00:40 PM
Fitting for today also

This should be happening again in a few places today.
 
2005-06-27 04:00:42 PM
Fortune telling; assumption. I have downloaded 20 mp3s, and have as a direct result of liking what I heard bought 5 CDs which I might not have otherwise bought, because I despaired of finding any other way to test the quality of a product.

Yes. and since it is their product, they get to determine which is the better path. They have chosen to guard the content right up to the cash register. Their choice. Not ours.

My guess is more people decline a purchase after getting the freebies than buy.
 
2005-06-27 04:06:48 PM
While the sentiment of the decision may make music recording companies and movie studios feel good, the decision is in reality irrelevant and practially unenforceable. The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no putting it back in.
 
2005-06-27 04:07:53 PM
Another thing, it's ridiculous that someone can't run a club or restaurant without having to pay for the rights to the music they play unless they use a home stereo setup.

Why should a club, who is attracting customers, and therefore making money, with that music, and who could not be in business without the music, be exempt for paying for the use of it?

I don't understand why people don't get that music is a product that's for sale. If you want it, you have to pay for it. If you don't pay for it, it's stealing. It doesn't matter why you don't, can't, or won't pay for it, if you don't pay for it, you can't have it. That's the law.

I'm not saying the system that we have now works well or is equitable, far from it. But that's the system we have. It doesn't matter if you think music is art that should be shared with everyone. If you have art you want to share, share away. The creator of a work is entitled to do with it as he/she pleases. But if that creator decides to sell it, you must pay if you want it, otherwise don't use it.

Pretty simple.
 
2005-06-27 04:10:07 PM
"who decides what software is fostering copyright infringement and which is legitimate networking software?"

It sure as hell aint the public. Christ, one could ban diapers with this law.
 
2005-06-27 04:14:30 PM
danlpoon

"My guess is more people decline a purchase after getting the freebies than buy."

I'm going to have to disagree - it's like when they give out cheese cubes with toothpicks at the grocery store. Almost everyone who walks by samples the cheese, but only very few actually enjoy it enough to buy a whole block of it. But those who sampled it and moved on weren't going to buy your Peppercorn Asiago anyway. So by giving it away for free, some people who wouldn't have bought it did, and those that didn't will, if it ever comes up in conversation, at least have something to say about your Peppercorn Asiago.

There's always some jerk (or hungry kid) who eats a handful of the cheese cubes and doesn't buy anything - but it's a worthwhile loss for the aforementioned benefits.
 
2005-06-27 04:18:51 PM
danlpoon

Fortune telling; assumption. I have downloaded 20 mp3s, and have as a direct result of liking what I heard bought 5 CDs which I might not have otherwise bought, because I despaired of finding any other way to test the quality of a product.

Much as it chafes my ass to be compelled to agree with you ( :) ), I must. However, for the bulk of the entertainment industry's product, that's not true.

The music biz make 80-90% of their money from acts like Britney Spears and that ilk, and they count on one single being crammed down the throats of junior high kids enough that peer pressure requires them to buy the album to be cool.

However, even junior high kids are smart enough to know they're getting ripped off, and they're technically savvy enough to find that song on the internet, and they all have MP3 players (another innovation the music biz hates) and if they didn't they all have Walkmans and can burn CD's (fought tooth and nail by the biz). This hurts the big labels right where they live.

If it was a matter of what you described, and they know in no uncertain terms that in the adult market (I mean over 24, not porn) this is indeed the case. But no matter how many CD's of good music you and I buy based on stuff we found on the internet, it's not going to make up for the teenybopper crowd realizing they're getting jerked around.
 
2005-06-27 04:18:56 PM
Red Vs Blue, Real Life Vs The Internet

Going Shopping, Real Life
a: $12.99 for that Creed CD, please.
b: Here you go.
a: Have a nice day!

Going Shopping, Internet
a: Does anyone have the new Creed CD?
b: I have it.
a: Give it to me, right now.
b: Give it to you? Why would I do that?
a: You're not giving it to me! Give it to me faster!
b: Wait, that's illegal.
a: No it isn't! I don't want it to be illegal, therefore it isn't. That's the way it works.
c: Creed sucks! I hate you, and I hate the bands you like!
 
2005-06-27 04:21:33 PM
Hmmmm...banning a technology for sharing files, which in itself is not illegal at all, rather than punishing those who misuse it. Yeah, makes a TON of sense. Let's ban interstates to stop speeders.

The bottom line is that the publishing industry came up against a technology the could force them into a complete paradigm shift in their business methods. Rather than making them evolve, the gub'ment has chosen to do the completely illogical. Whores.
 
2005-06-27 04:21:46 PM
it's not going to make up for the teenybopper crowd realizing they're getting jerked around.

Right. So it boils down to "Them" being pissed that their target demo figured out that they don't need "Them". I'd be pretty upset too if all the marks I profit from decided to wake up one day and stop installing new fonts and screensavers...

/the difference is that I tell my Clients to stop and they still do... oh wait!
//OK, the difference is I don't sure when my Clients ignore me
 
2005-06-27 04:22:21 PM
Creed sucks! I hate you, and I hate the bands you like!

Creed really does suck, though.

The band I listen to are so obscure even I've never heard of them.
 
2005-06-27 04:23:48 PM
That should be "I don't SUE when my Clients ignore me", but perhaps I should start donating to my Congress-person???
 
2005-06-27 04:24:07 PM
When is the SCOTUS gonna biatch-slap AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, etc.? Ya know, since people can e-mail mp3s to each other over them.
 
2005-06-27 04:24:42 PM
Fine. From now on, I'll use Limewire for legal downloads, even if the use of software itself is illegal.
 
2005-06-27 04:25:29 PM
the difference is that I tell my Clients to stop and they still do... oh wait!

Lawyer: What ever you do, don't leave town.
Client: I Promise!
Sec'y: *brrring* Hello..Hold on, I'll gey him.
Client: Hey, I went out of town yesterday and when I got back they ARRESTED my ass. can you believe that?
Lawyer: Darwin was right?
Client: Darwin? Is that Judge Darwin? can you get me of or what?
 
2005-06-27 04:29:42 PM
NCg9r

Right. So it boils down to "Them" being pissed that their target demo figured out that they don't need "Them". I'd be pretty upset too if all the marks I profit from decided to wake up one day and stop installing new fonts and screensavers...

Well, I don't mean to imply that free commerce is a scam. But these labels have chosen to use monopolisitic tactics on children, and they do not provide value for the money they charge. They have gone after children because children are easy to manipulate and they have more and more money to spend every year. And children's money is ALL disposable. It's the same thing as the TV/cereal/toy triumvirates you see with products like Pokemon and Power Rangers. They know Mom and Dad can't say no to precious little Amber.

With your clients, I'm sure you operate on a true free commerce system, meaning that you provide value for the money you charge.
 
2005-06-27 04:30:03 PM
bittorrent
 
2005-06-27 04:34:15 PM
Eat More Possum:

Exactly, yet only one of us paid for it. I am not without sin on this matter, but the fact is, it is stealing, pure and simple.

Not all shared music is copyrighted against free distribution, so no.
 
2005-06-27 04:36:34 PM
Not all shared music is copyrighted against free distribution, so no.

But that which isn't isn't really relevant to this discussion, is it?
 
2005-06-27 04:36:59 PM
Lets all stop to think about this one for a moment.

Will this stop anything that is current going happening on the internet right now?

.
.
.
.

Didn't think so.

So long as stuff exists digitally, there will be those of us with an eye patch and wooden leg, having a blast on the digital seas.

/Head off to check his newsbin que
 
2005-06-27 04:40:07 PM
Oddly enough, I see this as a good thing. The RIAA and its members have been digging their own grave for decades. The only reason why they've lasted so long is because they hold a vertical monopoly on all aspects of music, from creation to promotion to distribution. I can understand why they're upset, because file sharing takes some of that control away.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with file sharing. Legality aside, I have no moral qualms about letting my friends download a track off a CD which I purchased. I don't think most Americans do. History has proven that an easily accessible means of reproduction of media ultimately helps the media industry (VHS tapes, dubbing audio cassette decks). In the past, the industry fights it, they lose, then reap a windfall. This time around, they're not losing the battle (at least in the courts). Hopefully, this will lead the industry further down the road to its eventual, inevitable collapse.

Then someone will realize "Hey, we *can* make money producing and selling records! We just have to release good music instead of pre-package poop that sounds like everything else!" Then someone else will realize "Wait a minute, perhaps we should be nice to our paying customers instead of treating them like criminals because they share!" Wont it be amazing?

Meanwhile, stop buying CDs from RIAA member companies. I don't (pity for them, since I used to purchase 100+ albums a year until they said I was a thief because I listened to music others shared. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to do business with an industry that labels me a criminal for helping them make money).
 
2005-06-27 04:40:51 PM
danlpoon - Their choice. Not ours.

Don't I know it.

Now, about those evidenciary standards... I'm sure that you didn't just say that fortune-telling and psychic revelations make for acceptable evidence of damage, by virtue of the copyright holder asserting that they are.

Oh, yes... "damage" in this case is determined by the broader definitions written by the interested corporations. Well hell, why would anyone have a problem with that?

My beef is that I am unsure that file sharing causes these corporations any actual damage, and that these corporations have succeeded in redefining damage without ever having to demonstrate that they ARE suffering financial damage, or produce a model illustrating how this damage is caused.

Essentially, we've made it illegal to displease corporations.

...and this doesn't scare you? You see no problem with this? We're paying to prosecute the objects of their ire. We're paying to incarcerate them. I'd feel a lot better about this if I felt that the corporations were actually being harmed by John the Poor College Student; Hill, the Pre-Adolescent Girl; or even Stag, the Raging Anarchist Commie.
 
2005-06-27 04:43:16 PM
Then someone will realize "Hey, we *can* make money producing and selling records! We just have to release good music instead of pre-package poop that sounds like everything else!"

Yes, but the problem is that they can't make AS MUCH money. That's what the fighting's about. The record biz is a multi-billion dollar industry, but the lion's share of that goes in the big label's pockets right now. Any challenge to their monopoly is good news for consumers, who will pay less for music, and good news for artists because they might just be able to make a living playing their music, but bad news for the labels because the redistribution of wealth is coming right off the top of their share.
 
2005-06-27 04:43:44 PM
10 post to infinity. By the way, I recommend that everyone should reread all the post by LarsThorwald. His are usually insightful.

stevarooni (TF) 22
faethe (TF) 20
archanoid (TF) 17
danlpoon (TF) 15
slobarnuts (TF) 14
lovehate (TF) 11
Paranoia_Agent 10
zvoidx (TF) 10
 
2005-06-27 04:44:46 PM
The Cotton Gin should made illegal since it stole all the profits of those god fearing slaves.
 
2005-06-27 04:46:06 PM
Funny thing is, record sales are going up, while the quanity and quality of new music, is going down. The music industry hasnt shrunk since mp3s came out, anymore than it did when tapes came out. tape is to vinyl what mp3 is to cd.. this is nothing new, and its not the end of the world
 
2005-06-27 04:51:37 PM
In completely unrelated news, I've ramped up my music downloading from 0% to 15-20% of my bandwidth. I'm not sure if it is spite, but it probably is... I won't even listen to the stuff I get. Mattafact, I've got several dozen hours of videos of people farking that I still need to get to.
 
2005-06-27 04:56:12 PM
scuffer: Funny thing is, record sales are going up, while the quanity and quality of new music, is going down. The music industry hasnt shrunk since mp3s came out, anymore than it did when tapes came out. tape is to vinyl what mp3 is to cd.. this is nothing new, and its not the end of the world

Only in the Southern United States is that true.

Ment to post this earlier: Complete Stats
 
kab
2005-06-27 04:59:29 PM
Here is an undisputable fact. The last... oh, 30-40 cd's that I've purchased have been due entirely to listening to the work through what can be considered "illegal" means, finding the music enjoyable enough to warrant a purchase. The stuff that doesnt make the cut gets deleted anyhow.

All this is from bands, I should add, I would not have heard from in any other fashion, other than word of mouth, etc etc.

-MP3 sound quality generally sucks. Downloadables are not worth considering "keepable" (and yes, even the difference between wma's theoretical lossless and a CD is audible on high quality speakers). I guess its good enough for some however.....

-deciding whether I'll like something by listening to absolutely horrendous streaming clips is unacceptable.

-The artist, although he / she / they sort of reap what they sow when they sign contracts that let them only get pennies on the dollar for a cd sale, DO deserve something nonetheless. Buy the cd, or better yet, go to a live show, purchase merchandise.
 
2005-06-27 05:01:15 PM
Essentially, we've made it illegal to displease corporations.

Well, in spite of their incorporeal essence corporations do have rights, one of which is to hold a copyright. I think the philosophy behing IP and Copyright law got us pretty far as a society. I am not ready to bail on it.

My beef is that I am unsure that file sharing causes these corporations any actual damage, and that these corporations have succeeded in redefining damage without ever having to demonstrate that they ARE suffering financial damage, or produce a model illustrating how this damage is caused.


Nothing new here.


We're paying to prosecute the objects of their ire. We're paying to incarcerate them.

Yes, the prisons are full of KAZAA users. And no, it doesn't scare me. I hope the Farkers realize that NONE of the decisions this week have changed the law one bit.
 
2005-06-27 05:01:18 PM
I constantly wonder why people who have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT insist on posting their stupid, stupid opinions.

For the people who think that file-sharing is not like stealing: You are wrong. While it is actually more like market dilution, the same concept applies and it is: Why pay for something when you can get it for free? If people can easily get a song/CD for free through file-sharing, they are less likely to purchase the song/CD. Therefore the market for the song/CD (i.e. the people who are likely to purchase the item) shrinks and so do profits. While the RIAA more than likely inflates the lost profits numbers, file-sharing does negatively affect sales.

For the people who think this ruling will kill portable music players: You are wrong. The courts have already ruled that portable music players do not violate copyright laws. I can't remember the case name but I'm pretty sure it was based on an early Rio player. These portable players cannot copy music on their own so they can't violate copyright law.

Finally, the court ruled that Grokster is liable because of the way it was marketed. They didn't rule that file-sharing technologies are in violation of copyright law in general. This hasn't killed file-sharing technologies as many people thought it would, nor has it required that people who write file-sharing software include ways to prevent copyrighted works from being shared. This is nowhere near as bad as it could have been.
 
2005-06-27 05:01:54 PM
For everyone saying that copyright infringement is illegal and wrong, you're missing out on one key point -- it is now beyond anyone's power to stop.

What will happen when someone invents a star-trek-esque replicator that can turn garbage into food, medicine, or bars of gold?

Assuming the US government doesn't cause a civil war in the next few hundred years, it'll happen, and then this quaint little barter system will go poof.
 
Displayed 50 of 588 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report