Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

20273 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2005 at 11:13 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

588 Comments     (+0 »)
 


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

 
2005-06-27 10:37:04 AM  
Great headline, submitter.
 
2005-06-27 10:41:18 AM  
"File sharing" is merely an euphemism for stealing.
 
2005-06-27 10:42:46 AM  
9-0 wow...
 
2005-06-27 10:43:08 AM  
Eat More Possum

Not really. If I steal a book fom you, I have it and you don't.

If I share music with you, we both have it.
 
2005-06-27 10:44:56 AM  
It is a logical decision to some extent. The concept (to me anyway) is like a used book store or used record store...but I can see both sides of this one.

/Off to uninstall WINMX
 
2005-06-27 10:45:03 AM  
So does this mean the *AAs will go back to suing these companies and not the individual users? Wait, no, they'll just sue them both now.
 
2005-06-27 10:45:12 AM  
SWEEP!
 
2005-06-27 10:45:44 AM  
Ouch!
 
2005-06-27 10:46:32 AM  
OH NO, I'll never have access to free music again!

Hahahahahahahaha
 
2005-06-27 10:47:18 AM  
ive got your proper html tags right here smooshie

<b> </b>
 
2005-06-27 10:47:27 AM  
bye bye bittorrent

it's been nice knowing you
 
2005-06-27 10:47:47 AM  
You mean, I'm gonna have to do this the hard way again by using mIRC?
 
2005-06-27 10:47:52 AM  
To the Pirate bay!

[image from totalupload.com too old to be available]
 
2005-06-27 10:48:17 AM  
This shouldnt even be a newsflash, more like OBVIOUS.

If anyone thought the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Grokster, they were seriously kidding themselves..
 
2005-06-27 10:49:03 AM  

ALL YOUR MUSIC ONLY ARE BELONG TO YOU.



/got nothin'
 
2005-06-27 10:49:28 AM  
Thanks, slobarnuts!
 
2005-06-27 10:49:43 AM  
smooshie: If I share music with you, we both have it.

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.
 
2005-06-27 10:50:19 AM  
In a certain Communist country, file shares you!
 
2005-06-27 10:51:55 AM  
Awesome! Now watch the lawsuits come in against Smith & Wesson, et. al., because "developers of software weapons violate federal copyright criminal law when they provide computer gun users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet murder people."
 
2005-06-27 10:51:59 AM  
mouser_inc: bye bye bittorrent

Not really. Someone in a different country will host it. No biggie.

Eat More Possum: but the fact is, it is stealing, pure and simple.

There's a lot of debate about what it actually is. Is it stealing? No-one loses any sort of physical product. Or is it copyright infringement? Who knows, or cares...
 
2005-06-27 10:53:57 AM  
RichieXP: Not really. Someone in a different country will host it. No biggie.

Except somewhere along the line, you are likely to access it through an American server...
 
2005-06-27 10:54:07 AM  
Eat More Possum: but the fact is, it is stealing, pure and simple

The fact is, you've bought into the hype. It is not stealing. That's why the SCOTUS didn't say anything about violating THEFT laws. They said the "that developers of software violate federal copyright law..."

It's still illegal.
 
2005-06-27 10:55:51 AM  
RichieXP: There's a lot of debate about what it actually is. Is it stealing?

It's really no different than stealing a physical music cd. The plastic and lyrics are just inconsequential extras. You are paying for a copy of the master recording.
 
2005-06-27 10:55:57 AM  
zvoidx:

Except somewhere along the line, you are likely to access it through an American server...

So the rest of the world is subject to American laws if we somehow use an American server?

That's a bit farkin insane
 
2005-06-27 10:56:13 AM  
Or is it copyright infringement? Who knows, or cares...
The copyright holder and, now, those who break it.
 
2005-06-27 10:56:56 AM  
If I check out a CD from a public library and listen to it, am I stealing the music? After all, a CD at the public library is only purchased once but may be heard by many many people.
 
2005-06-27 10:58:52 AM  
RichieXP:
So the rest of the world is subject to American laws if we somehow use an American server?
That's a bit farkin insane


No, I'm saying if you are in the US, that somewhere along the line it's going to be piped to you via an American server.
 
2005-06-27 10:59:45 AM  
There've been debates about libraries, bboy, but the fact remains that the library purchased that copy of music. While you have it checked out, nobody else can go to the library and borrow that CD, therefore there's a pretty limited "bandwidth" for music not directly paid-for through that library. But, a good thing to bring up. If you bring it home and burn a copy/store it on cassette, yes, you're infringing copyrights.
 
2005-06-27 10:59:46 AM  
zvoidx:

No, I'm saying if you are in the US, that somewhere along the line it's going to be piped to you via an American server.

Oh. That's ok then. :)

/Brit
 
2005-06-27 11:00:46 AM  
NOTE

The SCOTUS did not rule that P2P is illegal. They did not rule that file-sharing is illegal. They primarily ruled that Grokster itself, in this particular case, can be sued because "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 ..."

So, what they basically ruled is: Grokster made a product that could be used to violate copyright law, then encouraged people to do so...thereby violating copyright law themselves.

This is primarily why gun manufacturers aren't sued when their products are used to violate laws. Gun manufacturers don't (that I know of anyway) encourage murder.

Furthermore, theft (of a physical CD for instance) is covered under a different part of law from copyright violation. Ergo, copyright violation (sharing a CD, song, or movie without the express consent of the copyright holder and that does not fall under fair use) is still not theft.
 
2005-06-27 11:01:11 AM  
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.

Interesting. Let's say for a moment that I go download iTunes, which is free, right? And then I go download Audacity, which is also free. Then I fire up iTunes and connect to one of my fav 128Kbps internet radio stations. Then I fire up Audacity and set the input thingee to be the ...uh, I hypothetically forget which one it is, but it's the one that is not the microphone. Then I hit the "record" button on the audacity program and go do some stuff for an hour.

Then I come back and hit the 'stop' button and then select the 'export as wav' from the file menu and give it a file name. Then later I edit this thing and save the edited bits into individual songs that I later burn on to CD as audio CD that I can play in my car.

What have I stolen?
 
2005-06-27 11:02:44 AM  
bboy: If I check out a CD from a public library and listen to it, am I stealing the music?

No. If you make a copy of it, you are stealing the music.
 
2005-06-27 11:02:50 AM  
so landgrabbers aren't bad because they aren't sharring the land, they are keeping it, i want emmitdickerson domamaniac for windows, i'm developing stuff for it, and those last riffs in whatchamacallits song, that too
 
2005-06-27 11:03:29 AM  
smooshie [TotalFark]
Not really. If I steal a book fom you, I have it and you don't. If I share music with you, we both have it.

You're comparing apples to bananas.

On the one hand, you're stealing my book. On the other, you're making copies of music and both of us get a copy.

If you were photocopying my book then we'd both have a copy but only one of us paid for it. You've know violated the printed copyright instructions in the front of the book and taken away the authors ability to make money from that book.

You want to share your music then you should buy a CD and when you're done enjoying it, pass it along to someone else. That would be 'legal' music sharing.

Like someone else pointed out, I have my own collection of downloaded MP3s so I can't sit here casting stones... but I can understand the laws whether or not I agree with them.
 
2005-06-27 11:04:07 AM  
Wait, you people really thought that the SCOTUS would side next to the american people on this instead of the corporations, a week after they gave the corporations the right to boot you out of your house so that they could make even more money?
 
2005-06-27 11:04:51 AM  
They've made their decision - now let's see them enforce it.
 
2005-06-27 11:05:26 AM  
Weaps

There's probably something in the Itunes terms of service that says you cant record the free streaming audio.

So you would be violating the Itunes TOS.

I dont know this to be true, but Im guessing. I know XM has it in their TOS, although again its not the same thing because I pay for XM.
 
2005-06-27 11:05:26 AM  
Also, if file-sharing is stealing, HURRY UP, let's close public libraries!

I get access to books, I'm not paying ANYTHING and I can read them and give them back (delete them from my own library) when I'm done!
 
2005-06-27 11:05:31 AM  
archanoid

So, what they basically ruled is: Grokster made a product that could be used to violate copyright law, then encouraged people to do so...thereby violating copyright law themselves.

but how did grokster encourage sharing copyrighted material?

what about the legal aspects of file sharing?
and WHAT ABOUT MY PORN DAMMIT!
 
2005-06-27 11:05:50 AM  
Weaps: What have I stolen?

You have not stolen anything in the scenario you give (unless you're not paying for your computer, or your OS, or your bandwidth, or you robbed a convenient store when you were "doing some stuff" for an hour).

You may have violated some copyrights. The use you describe has long been held as fair use and you are likely not liable for copyright violation. If, however, you take the individual songs you created and post them online somewhere, or distribute them to 1,000 people (for a fee or not), you'd have a difficult time arguing fair use and would likely lose and be found guilty of copyright infringement.
 
2005-06-27 11:06:23 AM  
bboy

A CD is licensed to a public library for public display by the record company and/or artist, with the understanding that that copy will be checked out and listened to by others. In other words, libraries contract with record companies to allow people to listen to the CD. Just as movie distributors contract with Blockbuster to rent movies. These are licenses (to the libraries or to the video stores) from the owner saying, "Okay, you can do this and this with my property, but that's it."

So no, bboy if you check out a CD from a library and listen to it, it is not stealing the intellectual property, because the artist has permitted you access to listen to it.

But that is NOT THE SAME as taking a CD from a friend and copying the CD. Or game. Or book.

I cannot begin to fathom how the f*ck people think they are entitled to copy other people's artistic creations when they goddamned well know that if they didn't copy it, they'd have to buy it.
 
2005-06-27 11:08:03 AM  
Also, if file-sharing is stealing, HURRY UP, let's close public libraries!
When's the last time a file-sharing service made you pay late fees, Tatsuma? The point of the matter is that it's not file-sharing, it's file-copying. If you go to a library and photocopy (or scan-in) an entire book, you'd be subject to the same legal ramifications for copyright infringement, assuming that copyright still applied to the work.
 
2005-06-27 11:08:38 AM  
yawn, I'm all for free music, but if one good thing can come out of this, it's the inane: "people actually PAY for music?" comments that people think they're so clever spouting all the time. you're not original OR witty, get over it.
 
2005-06-27 11:09:55 AM  
Eat More Possum: No. If you make a copy of it, you are stealing the music.

(sigh) No, you're not stealing it. You're violating the copyright. Look into the law. It's two different things. There are two completely different sections of law that cover theft and copyright.

Some may say this is splitting hairs but I am just trying to educate. It is illegal to copy anything that is covered under copyright law without the copyright holder's permission (excluding limited cases of fair use...which are not explicitly spelled out in law but in precedent). It is not stealing.

If I murder someone, I am not charged with stealing their life.
 
2005-06-27 11:11:27 AM  
OK, I love getting music for free as much as the next guy. I also like getting software for free. But don't pirate music/software/movies and claim that it's not unethical/illegal. It is. Period.

For those of you saying "yeah, well we need to close the libraries now," grow up a little. You can actually go down to said library and check out a CD if you really don't want to pay for something. If you want to share YOUR music, donate all your CDs to your public library. If you want to make a more accurate comparison to books, file sharing is actually like photocopying an entire book from a friend or a library, and keeping the photocopied version for yourself. Guess what? That's illegal too.
 
2005-06-27 11:11:32 AM  
LarsThorwald, just to forestall what I know I'm going to hear, "I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't download the mp3!" Or, even more entertaining, "This is drek. I wouldn't want to own the CD, I just want to hear what all the hype about Madonna's latest record was." People seem to view artistic creations as something other than the possession of those artists; they seem to view it as community property and...oh...thanks for giving it to us. Now do something worth money.
 
2005-06-27 11:11:57 AM  
malicia: ut how did grokster encourage sharing copyrighted material?

I don't know. I haven't read the entire case. The ruling, however, said :"...shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement..."

So, I assume the evidence in the case indicates Grokster took affirmative steps to encourage infringement.
 
2005-06-27 11:12:09 AM  
[image from fika.org too old to be available]
[image from thinkgeek.com too old to be available]
 
2005-06-27 11:12:51 AM  
Yeah, what stevarooni said.

/for some reason it took me twice as much text to say it.
 
2005-06-27 11:13:33 AM  
stevarooni:

People seem to view artistic creations as something other than the possession of those artists

actually, in most cases it is possession of the record company.

in which case, i have no problem stealing from them.

realistically, IMHO, i don't think downloading music has or will have any real-world substantial affect on artists themselves. maybe on record companies bottom line, but not the artist.
 
Displayed 50 of 588 comments


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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






Loading...
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report