File Sharing Services

[AlecWest]

It shouldn't come as a suprise as this is the same bunch that just said your city/state can take your property and give it to Wal-Mart or any other Private Developer for what they think is a "fair" price.

True, but the justices also said that states were free to adopt new laws restricting the ability of government in their eminent domain authority. Michigan is a good example. The government still has the right to seize property ... but state legislators have created a complex set of hoops they must jump through to do it. It would be easy to create a law, especially in states allowing initiative petitions on ballots, to mandate that seizures can only take place to make way for a "publically-owned" project that can never be transferred to a private enterprise. I would not be surprised if such initiative petitions ended up on the 2006 ballots in several states. Nor would I be surprised if this became a national issue in the 2008 Presidential election.

But, back on topic, the court was clear in their decision that, quote:

Courts are less well-suited than Congress to the task of accommodating fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology.

I think this is why they rendered a non-decision decision ... bucking it back to the Appellate Court which could, as an option, buck it even further back to the District or Circuit Court system. They're trying to tell MGM that, while they unanimously sympathize with them and hope lower courts will reconsider their decisions, they really want them to pursue this matter in the legislative arena, not the judicial arena.

[ROF]

One becomes liable if he markets the product:

...with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action...

That makes it very clear that we aren't talking about particular devices, mediums or protocols along with their potentials, or even their present application - we are talking about marketing and intended use.

It is also clear that there would not be a problem if the said product was "capable of substantial
noninfringing uses".

I don't see what the fuzz is all about. You aren't supposed to incite others for criminal activity, plain and simple.

True.

The problem I have is that Marketing is the first step in getting a product to the end consumer. As long as they are a paying customer, who cares?

Those who share hundreds or thousands of Copyrighted files should be prosecuted. But on the other hand, File Sharing no matter what the protocol has substantial beneficial non-infringing use.

You can download Copyrighted files, but in my opinion, they are of lesser quality, incomplete, slower to transfer, "ghost" files, or contained worse "Nasties".

Most P2P software comes with a purchasing client for you to buy software.
I'd be curious to see what those numbers are compared to the Amount of Usable "NonGold" Downloads?

. . . and if that would show non-infringing use??

[AlecWest]

But on the other hand, File Sharing no matter what the protocol has substantial beneficial non-infringing use.

This is the one thing that puzzles me about the Supreme Court opinion. It's easy to go onto a file-sharing service and search for "Madonna" or "Metallica." What's not easy is viewing a list of all files being shared. In short, while the industry can say that substantial sharing of copyrighted files is taking place, they cannot quantify the number of non-copyrighted files being shared ... simply because there's no handle on the names of all such files nor an inclination by the industry to search for them even if there was. They can only guesstimate ... with a heavy accent on the guess part. In short, how can the industry say that most files being shared are copyrighted? Based on what data ... specifically???

The real funny part is that the "pro" file-sharers, the ones who do this sort of thing full-time, have already migrated to private networks in chatrooms and such. This leaves primarily only two types of file-sharers on the P2P networks ... the "little" guys who download maybe one or two songs every now and then and will never be on the industry's radar screen ... or the "stupid" guys who think they're immune from scrutiny. In short, any ruling that comes from the court will only allow the industry to go after the stupid people ... not the die-hards they really want to track down and prosecute.

It's been a while since I logged onto a P2P network. But, I've always wondered whether or not the pro file-sharers merely disguise their offerings ... sending friends an email saying something like, "Hey, guys, I'm making the latest STAR WARS movie available on P2P. Just log on and hunt for the file named OHMYGOD.PDF ... which is really a ZIP file with the ISO file inside."

[BJ_M]

well actually they can get a handle on the %% ...

because all they have to do is become a hub and watch what is requested and record it all - i.e. what metalica did with their stuff ..

[AlecWest]

well actually they can get a handle on the %% ...

because all they have to do is become a hub and watch what is requested and record it all - i.e. what metalica did with their stuff ..

That only proves what is "requested" ... not what is downloaded. A lot of searches can come up empty. The last time I used P2P, I was looking for a lot of "old time radio" shows ... and hit a LOT of empty searches. And sometimes, putting in a request for a copyrighted song can result in being put in an endless queue, with the song never being downloaded. Everything here is a guess.

[AlecWest]

Here's a sobering thought. When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution and the original Copyright Act of 1789, they envisioned a system to protect the "creator" of the work and only for a "limited period." Here's a recent quote from RIAA lackey, Mitch Brainwol:

"[The Court] has addressed a significant threat to the US economy and moved to protect the livelihoods of the more than 11 mln Americans employed by the copyright industries."

The copyright industries??? Oy. This is just what our founding fathers feared most ... the "rights kingdoms" declared unlawful by England's Statute of Anne ... upon which our original Copyright Act was based. Now, not only are these rights kingdoms lawful, they've been endowed with the dignity of law. Ben Franklin, et al, must be turning over in their graves.

[BJ_M]

well actually they can get a handle on the %% ...

because all they have to do is become a hub and watch what is requested and record it all - i.e. what metalica did with their stuff ..

That only proves what is "requested" ... not what is downloaded. A lot of searches can come up empty. The last time I used P2P, I was looking for a lot of "old time radio" shows ... and hit a LOT of empty searches. And sometimes, putting in a request for a copyrighted song can result in being put in an endless queue, with the song never being downloaded. Everything here is a guess.

as proved before - how such orgs come up with their numbers is subject to much debate

[BJ_M]

Here's a sobering thought. When our founding fathers drafted the Constitution and the original Copyright Act of 1789, they envisioned a system to protect the "creator" of the work and only for a "limited period." Here's a recent quote from RIAA lackey, Mitch Brainwol:

"[The Court] has addressed a significant threat to the US economy and moved to protect the livelihoods of the more than 11 mln Americans employed by the copyright industries."

The copyright industries??? Oy. This is just what our founding fathers feared most ... the "rights kingdoms" declared unlawful by England's Statute of Anne ... upon which our original Copyright Act was based. Now, not only are these rights kingdoms lawful, they've been endowed with the dignity of law. Ben Franklin, et al, must be turning over in their graves.

software copyright (as being fought in EC) opens up a even bigger can of worms .. maybe

[That Bastid]

Because the Supreme Court doesn't award damages? Ever? Because not even once have you heard of such a thing?

Might be why.


And to Rof

Funny, last time I checked my computer, Mp3 Player, CD Burner, DVD Recorder, etc. are all devices. I think you need some reading comprehension or you could borrow my lenses if the text isn't clear enough.

Actually, if you read the decision (and, of course, comprehend it) you will see that the ruling uses the term "device" to describe software programs as well as hardware.

[AlecWest]

Because the Supreme Court doesn't award damages? Ever? Because not even once have you heard of such a thing?

Hmm ... I guess the "tobacco settlement" was just a myth. The SC doesn't personally award judgements, they sustain the decisions of lower courts that award judgements. And later, they can turn around and reverse their decisions ... like they did recently on a case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and another case involving punitive awards against State Farm Insurance. Or in this case, they can vacate a lower court ruling, bucking it back to the previous court. The Supreme Court chose to pass the buck back suggesting "reconsideration" of the case, granting only their blessing to MGM, not a mandate for reversal. Further, their decision advised MGM that such matters are better dealt with by legislation, not by courts. Hopefully, MGM takes heed.

[SilverBlade]

Book authors can now sue companies that make paper because students can copy what's in the book onto the paper.

Also, Xerox should be sued for selling photocopiers

Well, shouldn't the movie rental companies be sues as well because they rent DVD's out to people, and if they have a DVD burner, they can easily copy the movies?

Better make cameras in any form illegal too, they can be used to take pictures of copyrighted works.

Lets see..hmm..better sue all ISP's for providing their customers a way to download copyrighted material.

What else...

Radio? gone..can be copied via tape

TV signals? gone...can be recorded onto TiVO, VHS, or DVD recorders

Computer chips? gone..they provide the internal workings to devices which allow copying.

Burning software like Nero? gone...can be used to make Audio CD's from mp3's, and to burn copied movies.

Better make all forms of media out there illegal too.

in fact...EVERYTHING that operates on electricity and has a computer chip in it is illegal now.

Gee, thanks for throwing us back 50 yrs Hollywood. With everything illegal now, how can you edit movies on the computer if they are illegal?.

[AlecWest]

With the Appellate Court order vacated by the Supreme Court, the ball is in their court now. And, they have two options. All their order did was sustain the order of a previous court. The Appellate Court can therefore decide to reconsider the case themselves ... or, they can choose to pass the buck back to District Court. And if, in District Court, an argument not previously raised is added into the mix, this could turn into a yo-yo that gets bounced back up to the Appellate Court again and then up to the Supreme Court again.

Or, as Eric Garland of Big Champagne (tracks P2P usage) said, quote:

"People read the words 'Supreme Court' and they think it's the bottom of the ninth, but this is clearly only the second inning. We are continuing down a winding path here, and more questions have been asked than answered."

BTW, if you like Limewire software and have a version earlier than 4.8, now's the time to download it. Mark Gorton, CEO of the Lime Group, said he'll probably stop distributing it because, quote, "...it appeared too difficult to meet the implied standard for inducement."

[painkiller]

As I see it, the Supremes are merely tools for the Entertainment Industry to work towards making sure that the public pays (and pays, and pays, ...) every single time they see and/or hear their (crap) copyrighted material.

Bound to happen.

[AlecWest]

As I see it, the Supremes are merely tools for the Entertainment Industry to work towards making sure that the public pays (and pays, and pays, ...) every single time they see and/or hear their (crap) copyrighted material.

Bound to happen.

The roots of this date back to the Copyright Act of 1909, though ... before the first electrically amplified record player was even introduced to the consumer. For the first time in US history, a creator could "assign" rights to a third party or bequeath them in a will as part of an estate ... and we've been going down a slippery slope ever since. From 1789 to now, we've come a long way ... from copyrights expiring if the creator died ... to copyrights that can go on for 50 years following a creator's death.

Copyright used to be a "right" of a creator. Now, it's just a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder.

[That Bastid]

Oh, my God, the nonsense you spout never ends. The right to assign, transfer, license and sell a copyright is its ESSENCE, not some newfangled boondoggle. You pine for some imaginary era where it was the responsibility of a book writer to buy and run a printing press, where a musician had to punch his own player piano rolls? That era NEVER EXISTED, and it MAKES NO SENSE that it would.

[ROF]

Copyright used to be a "right" of a creator. Now, it's just a commodity that can be sold to the highest bidder.

That's the problem with copyright, but does not address the current issue. Innovation will be stifled because as a marketer of a new product you have to consider each and every possible use of your product and the "enticing" words you use to sell your product.

Where would the CD Burner be without being advertise as being to create your own music compilations? Where would high speed internet be without being advertised as being able to quickly download large media files.

Not all music compilations are legal just as not all large media downloads are legal. Every possible use must now be considered before you advertise your product otherwise the people who have no talent (RIAA/MPAA/MGM/SONY) will turn around and a few years later sue you and your company for billions in potential lost revenue because of the way you happened to market your product years before.

This is just as bad for business as it is for innovation.

[AlecWest]

Oh, my God, the nonsense you spout never ends. The right to assign, transfer, license and sell a copyright is its ESSENCE, not some newfangled boondoggle.

Bullhockey. Read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution and tell me why they used the wording "exclusive Right."

[That Bastid]

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Nothing in that clause indicates that the creator of a work cannot sell, lease, or assign their copyright. "Exclusive" just means that they, exclusively, get to do what they want with the work they have created -- ie, no one else can legally help themelves to what they have created without the creator's consent.

[handyguy]

We can still use Newsgroups.

[painkiller]

And what about that section that defined the duration of the copyright?

Remember when (not very long ago) Disney went to Congress to change the copyright law and extend the copyright duration for Mickey Mouse? (since it passed the 75-year mark and hence would have then become public domain)

This isn't merely a "copyright" issue.

It's about the power brokers that change the rules for their benefit.

Rather than follow the rules, as the rest of us (have to) do.

[bazooka]

Let's outlaw everything....Our minds can even be used to circumvent copyright.

[Poplar]

Let's outlaw internet altogether. According to some study, half of the internet is being used for porn, the other half for piracy. Let's get rid of it once for all and live happily ever after in a police state!

[Raga]

Let's outlaw discussions that go on and on while persistently missing the point. That would be a service to humanity.

The point was about producer's intended use and subsequently willful assistance in illegal activity. That should be clear to anyone who bothered to read even a few pages of the court document.

[AlecWest]

Nothing in that clause indicates that the creator of a work cannot sell, lease, or assign their copyright.

When I am wrong, even partially wrong, I'll admit it. And in this case, my assessment of the Copyright Act of 1789 (actually became law in 1790) is partially wrong. The Library of Congress pointed me toward the actual text of the Act. But, here's where semantics comes into play ... and the "intent" of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the document.

A creator could not "sell" his copyright. The Founding Fathers believed that all innovation and works were the ultimate property of the public domain. But, for a limited period, they granted creators the exclusive right to profit from the innovations or works to encourage progress. In essence, if copyright owners couldn't print a work themselves, they could assign the right to print it to a printer (but NOT the copyright ownership itself). They could even assign the right to "administer" the copyright to an executor (but NOT the copyright ownership itself). And, if a copyright owner died during the life of his copyright, the copyright protection did extend beyond his death to the end of the last registered term. And then, it couldn't be extended or owned by anyone else ... even his relatives (much less copyright agencies or licenseers like the RIAA/MPAA).

In short, if Michael Jackson and The Beatles lived back in 1791, there is no way Jackson could "own" rights to their songs or "buy" those rights.

P.S. on "intent." Nowhere in the Constitution or any other legal Federal document will you find wording mandating a "separation of church and state." The only reason we know that's what the Constitution's intent was is because a group of Baptists in Connecticut wrote to then-President, Thomas Jefferson, asking him what he meant in the First Amendment by the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Jefferson's explanation letter back to the Baptist congregation used the wording "wall of separation between church and state."

[dvdguy4]

America is gonna be reorganized into the first Galatic Empire. This country is going downhill "Fast"

[AlecWest]

America is gonna be reorganized into the first Galatic Empire. This country is going downhill "Fast"

Perhaps. I can't remember who said this quote but, insofar as innovation and the public domain is concerned, someone said: The light bulb may belong to Edison but the light itself belongs to the world.

[That Bastid]

Stating the obvious is not refutation. It's obvious that selling a copyright doesn't mean that the work is owned in perpetuity; Congress doesn't provide that copyrights last forever. But the fact that a right is time-limited doesn't mean that it cannot be "sold." I can sell you an option to buy a stock at a certain price for a limited time. And, yet, if you buy the option, it doesn't automatically become a permanent right -- but a SALE (of a limited right, OBVIOUSLY) has still occurred.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what separation of church and state has to do with any of this.

[AlecWest]

Stating the obvious is not refutation.

It was only a "partial" refutation.

It's obvious that selling a copyright doesn't mean that the work is owned in perpetuity; Congress doesn't provide that copyrights last forever. But the fact that a right is time-limited doesn't mean that it cannot be "sold."

(sigh) Adam ... if you're listening in, could you chime in on this (as it pertains to Copyright Law in 1790 as opposed to now). Adam's a lawyer with intellectual property experience.

I can sell you an option to buy a stock at a certain price for a limited time.

Apples and oranges. Sorry. No one ever said that "stock" ultimately belonged to the public domain.

And I can't for the life of me figure out what separation of church and state has to do with any of this.

It was merely an attempt to say that not everything in laws are spelled out in black and white ... that they are generally (but not always) interpreted based upon the intent behind them. But, I think you know that.

[pongster]

Another stupid Supreme Court has decison to go along with allowing the seizing of personal property and the wishy-washy ten commandments decison.

A decision like this opens a whole new can of worms. It is a case of assigning an evil to the product itself rather than those who use it for illegal acts. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you can outlaw anything. Kitchen knifes, guns, cans of spray paint, medications, cars, food, etc. All of these things can kill or harm you if not used properly, but the evil lies in the individual. The same bleeding hearts want to let murderer and rapists off because they grew up in broken homes, or in a bad environment or because momma didn't let them watch teletubies. As Charlton Heston said...."IT's PEOPLE" (Soylent Green) not the product.

We continue to see an errosion of indivdual liberties and effort to put more power into the hands of government and the social and cultural elite. They don't want freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. Tolerance is preached and accepted, but only if the viewpoint agrees with what they think is acceptable. True tolerance is being able to live with other ideas, traditions, cultures, even if you don't agree with them. It is not a stifling or elimination or that which doesn't fit into your worldview.

The same elitists, condescending idiots who grew up on a diet of utopian Marxism are the first ones who want to grab power. They are so much smarter than us all. They know what's best for us. We should all go about our mundane and routine lives and leave the big decisions to them who provide the giant tits of governement.

I digress, but I shudder to think what it will be like in 20 more years.

[mbellot]

We should all go about our mundane and routine lives and leave the big decisions to them who provide the giant tits

Sounds like marriage.