Frogboy Frogboy

Take that file-swappers!

▼

Take that file-swappers!

A big blow to parasitic companies..

http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+rules+against+file+swapping/2100-1030_3-5764135.html?tag=nl
from WinCustomize Forums

Today was a big win for those of us who value intellectual property.  Companies like Grokster and Kazaa and others who profit off of enabling people to conveniently steal software, music, videos, etc. are now on notice thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

The Supreme court found that peer-to-peer providers are indeed liable for how users make use of their network.  I for one am pretty pleased with this outcome on a number of levels.

A few years ago, Napster took the world by storm. Its developer was hailed as a visionary and the company became a household name.  But many developers, including us, were pretty unhappy with the whole thing. Automated piracy is not revolutionary or innovative.  Many companies (including Stardock) had thought of such file sharing concepts in the past but did not invest in them because it would be difficult to keep people from pirating.  But companies and individuals with fewer scruples not only went forward with such ideas but profited greatly from them and won both fame and fortune.

These companies exist, IMO, purely to profit from people pirating other people's work.  Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly.

The Supreme Court wrote:

"There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."

While the court will, in future cases, need to clarify some of the elements of its ruling, I think this is a big win for people who create intellectual property.  I don't have a huge angst about piracy per se, but I have a lot of angst about companies in the business of profiting from it.

78,771 views 215 replies
Reply #51 from WinCustomize Forums Top
actually apocalypse67 you may be right. the reason i download your skin or anybody elses here at wincustomize is because it is free. which means i and the majority of other downloaders at this site fall into the latter category does it not?


Not really. The reason why you and all other users can download these skins for free is because I (as all other authors)CHOOSE to share our work for free, it's a lot different than if I create a skin for the purpose of selling it and have someone take it and distribute it for free.
Reply #52 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ok so the supreme court has made that ruling, BUT who will it punish more? The pirates or indipendant artists who use p2p to distribute their own copyright material in the hopes of building an audience since the labels dont feel they are woth touching. Up here in canada our govenment is bowing down to the labels and changing our copyright laws, of course if it passes a person will no longer automatically own rights to their own contracted pictures, say for example weddings.

Also not that i condone piracy, p2p did have a use when it came to finding songs/video that are old say little known songs from 20 years or more. I used it mainly to find songs that i could not on the pay services or the record stores because they are just not available anymore. Again i am not saying i am for piracy.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #53 from WinCustomize Forums Top

a person will no longer automatically own rights to their own contracted pictures, say for example weddings.

In Australia the photographer 'owns' the pictures.....usually after x amount of years he'll offer them to the 'subject'....including negatives, that is...

Architectural Drawings remain the property of the designer.  The 'client' purchases rights to their use...and that is ONLY to their intended use...ie...to build the subject property.  They do not buy distribution [on-selling] rights [unless that's specifically contracted]...

Reply #54 from WinCustomize Forums Top
/off-topic
The architect also retains image rights, as in: the use of his/her building as imagery by others. Not quite sure about the specifics, but it runs quite deep. I think it flows from the definition of copyright.
Reply #55 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Society determines what is or is not Lawful, and likewise 'ethical'.

Unfortunately, for 'file-sharers' they actually are in the minority within society, which has determined that 'some' of their actions are not acceptable and has ruled such.


Well gee now I get it. So you're saying that if I can convince 51% of society to agree that stealing intellectual property is legal and get it put into law (but I don't convince you), you would just up and let me steal everything you've ever made?

Sorry, but I somehow don't think that you would like that.

Morality has nothing to do with what is currently "popular". There is right, there is wrong, black, and white. It doesn't change.

Now that I've stated that, I wholeheartedly agree that stealing someone's work, whether it be material, or immaterial (IP) is illegal. So why do I think file-sharing is not only legal, but a good thing?

For the exact same reason that I think the service this website offers is a good thing. This website offers hosting of people's artwork so that other people can obtain it. Some artwork is free, some is not. That's fine with me. But your site can be used to host illegal content, or to faccilitate stealing. In fact, I would bet that the hardware and software used for this site is actually used for an illegal warez site somewhere else, completely unrelated.

Does that make the hardware and software used to run your site illegal? No. Why? Because the author/creator made the software for a purpose. It's just that someone decided to use it for something illegal.

Same thing is happening in this case. File-sharing software in general is not made to steal IP. It is meant to share files. Sure, it makes stealing IP easy, but so does the Windows "copy file" function. Sure, people use file-sharing for illegal purposed, same as the Windows "copy file" function. Does that mean that the creator was evil and wanted people to steal using his software? No.

The instant you let the users determine your "intent" for creating a tool, is the instant you take free choice away from the creator. The original creator of the gun I'm sure meant to use it to protect the people he was protecting. But guess what? The majority of guns today are used to kill innocent people, or to oppress or keep under oppression, those who should be free. Does that suddenly change the intent of the gun's creator to match the majority of the users? NO. The original intent of the creator is the same. No ammount of illegal (or even legal) activity caused by that tool will ever change original intent, as good or bad as it might have been.

Remember, software doesn't copy and steal IP, people copy and steal IP.

I'm saddend with how many people can't make this distinction.
Reply #56 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh...what utter bull-shit.

Go 'admire' your ART in a Gallery....[assuming there is no entry fee]...or spend serious money to 'own' it in your own home....that's a fact of life, and always has been. You DO realise that those great works of the Masters that people admire so much were 'commissioned'.....look it up...it's under 'c'.

There's nothing new and wonderful about 'digital art'.....just because it's post baby-boomer technology doesn't alter the rights of its creator to protect what is his.

Being ABLE TO 'get it for nothing' is THEFT, unless you are getting it from its owner.

And no, you do not OWN that copy of Photoshop, you bought a license to use it...and that is limited use.

What 'can' just as easily happen is.... enough people who create these artworks called 'skins' FOR YOU will begin to see their 'intellectual property' is treated so lightly by those freely downloading it that they will decide..."enough of this crap. My work is not 'valued' ergo I will NOT SHARE IT".

Frankly....once the 'freely accessible' is no longer such, well...tough titties for those left staring at an unadorned computer screen.


Well I wont go around saying what other people is saying is utter bull-shit, but I will say that you misinterpreted what I was saying. Of course claiming that owning such and such painting should cost money. Its a thing.

But the point of art is not to make money, but to pass along something which can be enjoyed and observed by other people. If you think that the Renaissance started because of money, then you my friend are bull-shit
Reply #57 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Society determines what is or is not Lawful, and likewise 'ethical'.

Unfortunately, for 'file-sharers' they actually are in the minority within society, which has determined that 'some' of their actions are not acceptable and has ruled such.

It's frustrating when those who 'know it all' as young adults have their dreams dashed by old bastards called Judges, etc....with legal professionals all seemingly brainless old farts....but strangely they, too were young[er] once and yet are actually still human and members of the same society as the rest of us...and shock-horror...[mostly] more extensively educated/experienced....certainly in property law.



Ummm pretty much everything youve said there is just plain wrong.

No society doesnt not determine what is lawful, lawmakers determine what is lawful. In america we dont all sit down in a happy little room and say this is against the law or this is not. I know many 'societies' near where I live would make marijuana legal............but they cant.

No society doesnt determine what is ethical, that just makes no sense any way you look at it. Ethics is the application of moral values, goverened by absolutes that we as a people havent understood completely yet. Ethica guidelines at this point and time are based off many different ethical principles that were established by great philosophers like Kant and Socrates.

Im sorry but too me, your just spitting shit right now because you do fail to understand that NOT everyone believes in the concept of Intellectual Property. Heck many countries ....COUNTRIES... dont enforce Intelectual Property laws because they just dont believe in them. In the ethical community, it is WELL KNOWN that file swapping is unethical, because, AND ONLY BECAUSE it is illegal. It in no ways links back to theivery or morality, or anything of the such.

Not everyone believes in Intellectual Property. Accept it and STFU. Or dont support this website, which post up skins that blatently rip off Mac and Linux styles. If your that 'pure' then get the hell outta here.

I buy most of my music, and Ill say im am seriously sick and tired of you guys and your soap boxes
Reply #58 from WinCustomize Forums Top
But the point of art is not to make money, but to pass along something which can be enjoyed and observed by other people.


This descition is up to the artist/creator not up to the general public to decide what is free to view/observed/obtained. As an artist it's my sole descition to create something of my own imagination using my hands and tools to render a final product and it is that same determination that will make me choose to share it for free with the general public. But if I choose to create any art piece for the purpose of profit, there is none that can tell me I can't do that because it should be free nor gives anyone the right to take that piece, reproduce it and distribute it with out my concent.
This is the fine line that separates those with moral values and respect for others and those with lack of it.
Reply #59 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ka806: So are you saying that software (and other so-called intellectual property) should paid for unless someone doesn't want to, and then they can have it for free? So, my work as a software developer and a recording studio owner/engineer would be as a volunteer? Exactly how do you see this working?

As for the soap boxes, it seems to me that you've been on yours quite a bit here.
Reply #60 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I buy most of my music, and Ill say im am seriously sick and tired of you guys and your soap boxes


Ahh, in a perfect society you can just browse out of this page and free your self from the soap boxes.
And I would love to see your reaction if you was ever to create something of your own to earn a living and I would come along and take what you have made and give it out for free. Hell, I can even pass it as my own creation since you dont believe in Intellectual Property.
A problem is not a problem until it becomes yours.
Reply #61 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ka806: So are you saying that software (and other so-called intellectual property) should paid for unless someone doesn't want to, and then they can have it for free? So, my work as a software developer and a recording studio owner/engineer would be as a volunteer? Exactly how do you see this working?

As for the soap boxes, it seems to me that you've been on yours quite a bit here.



I work as a software developer also and still hold that opinion. I dont see it as volunteer work. You seem to be taking out of context what im saying. This is on the concept of Intellectual Property. People and countries just dont believe in it. If people dont view it as property, then they have no reason to buy it. Of course where do the people make money? Thats in the copyrights. If the project that you are developing is solid and you put it behind a good name. Then yes, I do brand those that take it against that persons wishes as theivery. To give people the right to copy in what you make is perfectly fine to money makers is ok in my opinion. To say that you hold property on intellect?.....thats just ridiculous.

You can say Im on my own personal soap box whatever. Id disagree because Im not telling other people that they are just wrong.....im just telling them to shut up.

But whatever that was a little out of line of me and im sorry for that
Reply #62 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ahh, in a perfect society you can just browse out of this page and free your self from the soap boxes.
And I would love to see your reaction if you was ever to create something of your own to earn a living and I would come along and take what you have made and give it out for free. Hell, I can even pass it as my own creation since you dont believe in Intellectual Property.
A problem is not a problem until it becomes yours.



I dunno why people always sit there thinking Im some teenager who just want to copy things and is not in risk of this happening to me. Ill tell you a bit about myself. Im a software engineer....I do work on commercial and government products.....I do like to get money....I hate patents.....I dont believe in IP.....I love copyrights....I think the GNU is the best license ever... Its hard for me to stray away from a good argument.

I do work very hard and some of my stuff does get taken against my wishes. But I still hold these views strong.
Reply #64 from WinCustomize Forums Top

This descition is up to the artist/creator not up to the general public to decide what is free to view/observed/obtained. As an artist it's my sole descition to create something of my own imagination using my hands and tools to render a final product and it is that same determination that will make me choose to share it for free with the general public. But if I choose to create any art piece for the purpose of profit, there is none that can tell me I can't do that because it should be free nor gives anyone the right to take that piece, reproduce it and distribute it with out my concent.
This is the fine line that separates those with moral values and respect for others and those with lack of it.


Ummm no its up to the law. And some countries dont impose Intellectual Propety laws. If you dont believe that such and such intellect is property, then whos right is it to say that the author can charge for it. Its not that hard of a concept to understand. Even in the US it is the LAW'S decision to enforce intellectual property, not the artist. I dont buy music because of I want a piece of this guys intellect (that makes no sense to me). I buy it for my right to copy (copy as in listen, and actually show respect to the name that shoved out the music).

Oh and yes i take back what i said about patents, that was general use of it. I dont like when patents are applied to intellectual property is what I mean (software music movies etc.)
Reply #65 from WinCustomize Forums Top
And some countries dont impose Intellectual Propety laws. If you dont believe that such and such intellect is property, then whos right is it to say that the author can charge for it. Its not that hard of a concept to understand.


So, by your logic, because some countries practice genocide, then that makes it okay, as long as you don't believe it's wrong?

And the term Intellectual Property (as I understand it) just means "I created it, but it's not something you can hold in your hand, but something you can hold in your mind." So, what is the difference between that and copyright, which says about the same thing, and speaks to the rights pursuant to that claim. It seems to me that the concept of Intellectual Property is the foundation for Copyright.

I guess I really don't understand your perspective. (Do you?)
Reply #66 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ummm no its up to the law.


WRONG. The law cannot make me give anything I create for free. It is my sole descition to do so.
Reply #67 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Its just that some people dont believe in the notion of Intellectual Property,

If they think not believing means it doesn't exist, then they probable still haven't figured out the reality of peek-a-boo.

But hey, if it actually does work, then I will no longer hold any belief in physical property. Just don't get pissed when I take all your stuff.


If someone dooesnt feel they should pay for an artistic creation, then they shouldnt.

I completely agree. But it dooesn't mean they can steal it.
Reply #68 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Seems like the internet has made people even more entitlement minded. It also seems that the people who are arguing against "intellectual property" own very little of it.

In order for the American society to work each individual must spend the majority of their day doing something to acquire money or goods (generally money which will later be exchanged for goods, in turn contributing to the cycle). If you take the money out of their daily equation they are forced to find something different to do which will provide the money or goods they need. If they do that, the original task will no longer be done (as in no software, music, whatever).

You simply cannot hold the amount of money someone makes for a given service over their head as a "penalty" or justification for not paying for the service you are expected to pay for. After all, supply and demand dictates prices one may charge for services.

When someone says "everyone should get everything, everything should be given to me because I can't/won't do what it takes to acquire it as intended" is simply voicing an "entitlement" attitude ("I exist therefore I have earned the right to a luxurious lifestyle just like my friend the hard working [enter profession here] does without putting in the same work."). What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking.

For those demanding free software, I see very, very, very few items created around here with The Gimp 2 or other open source software which is INTENDED to free. There are free, legal alternatives out there, use them or pay a LICENSING (not ownership) fee so we can be sure those industry leading software suites continue to release new versions with new functionality.
Reply #69 from WinCustomize Forums Top
You can say Im on my own personal soap box whatever. Id disagree because Im not telling other people that they are just wrong.....im just telling them to shut up.


Basically there are 2 reasons to tell people to shut up on forum:
1) you're tired of listening to them because you think they're wrong
2) you're tired of listening to them because you're wrong and can't handle the truth
Reply #70 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Frankly....once the 'freely accessible' is no longer such, well...tough titties for those left staring at an unadorned computer screen.



or perhaps one can over estimate the importance of the need (for some of us) to adorn one's computer in the first place particularly when it means tolerating a virtual space which has increasingly become more and more commodified. somehow however i doubt that there will come a time when the "'freely accessible' is no longer such". afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place.
Reply #71 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Not really. The reason why you and all other users can download these skins for free is because I (as all other authors)CHOOSE to share our work for free, it's a lot different than if I create a skin for the purpose of selling it and have someone take it and distribute it for free.



why yes. my point exactly apocalypse67. people's opinions cannot simply be categorized into either those who 'make a living out of their work' and 'ones that just wants to freely take other people's work' perhaps context is important afterall.

perhaps also the issue of copyright is not simply one that can be so easily defined in black & white terms of ownership & theft.
Reply #72 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Lot to respond to so lets do it at once =P


So, by your logic, because some countries practice genocide, then that makes it okay, as long as you don't believe it's wrong?

And the term Intellectual Property (as I understand it) just means "I created it, but it's not something you can hold in your hand, but something you can hold in your mind." So, what is the difference between that and copyright, which says about the same thing, and speaks to the rights pursuant to that claim. It seems to me that the concept of Intellectual Property is the foundation for Copyright.

I guess I really don't understand your perspective. (Do you?)


That was a bad analogy at best. Comparing what one country practices with what a country imposes as law is not right. No its not that countries practice the rejection of intellectual property, they flat out deny its exsistence. Im Haitian and know full well of countries that perform genecide, I know its because of economical, social, and political disputes......not because its the law. Dont say such things cause that does make me angry.
Intellectual Property was simply the implementation of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets to many of the things that are either
-duplicated without loss to the owner
-not actually tangible and exsisting to people.
Using all of these in conjunction adds up to what Intellectual Property is. Of course it sounds great and all but all these products need are copyrights, tademarks, and trade secrets. The concept behind Intellectual Property was to put artistic and other products in with the same league as some of the tangible items which exsist today. However Intellectual Property is NOT the same as regular property. Because of their artistic (and in software code 'mathematical') nature. We shouldnt be allowed to put patents on such things. Copyrights is enough to protect the name, trademarks is enough to protect the logo, and trade secrets is enough to protect the software.
What if apple sued stardock for those apple tags? They can just flaunt their little IP tag cause they are using an artistic style based of the macos website and tab style. How about they sue all of the people who make skins and themes that make windows look like osx. How about they sue stardock for their osx bars? Yes it can happen with IP. How about reverse engineering code. If IP was there for the days binary was around, we couldnt attempt to replicate it. It would be illegal.
. It promotes monopolies just flat out. Look now microsoft can create a new API, make it standard with their large market share. Then everyone will HAVE to use it since noone is allowed to reverse engineer it

The concept to IP is real, its not something you can understand in your own way.

WRONG. The law cannot make me give anything I create for free. It is my sole descition to do so.


I never said that. I said the law can deem anything you create as property or not. The government can do whatever you want to what ever you create. Look at price ceilings. The government can even disallow you from entering a market. Look at utilities.
I never said they make you give anything for free (if i said that i mustve mistyped). Im saying they can label it as what they want when they want. You could sell it at a price whenever you want..........but it might still be legal to download.

Seems like the internet has made people even more entitlement minded. It also seems that the people who are arguing against "intellectual property" own very little of it.

In order for the American society to work each individual must spend the majority of their day doing something to acquire money or goods (generally money which will later be exchanged for goods, in turn contributing to the cycle). If you take the money out of their daily equation they are forced to find something different to do which will provide the money or goods they need. If they do that, the original task will no longer be done (as in no software, music, whatever).

You simply cannot hold the amount of money someone makes for a given service over their head as a "penalty" or justification for not paying for the service you are expected to pay for. After all, supply and demand dictates prices one may charge for services.

When someone says "everyone should get everything, everything should be given to me because I can't/won't do what it takes to acquire it as intended" is simply voicing an "entitlement" attitude ("I exist therefore I have earned the right to a luxurious lifestyle just like my friend the hard working [enter profession here] does without putting in the same work."). What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking.

For those demanding free software, I see very, very, very few items created around here with The Gimp 2 or other open source software which is INTENDED to free. There are free, legal alternatives out there, use them or pay a LICENSING (not ownership) fee so we can be sure those industry leading software suites continue to release new versions with new functionality.


It seems that people arguing for intellectual property know very little about it, or like monopolies. I mean you can run to open source software like the gimp when you need to sleep at night thinking IP is the way to Be. But you are setting yourself up to just fail. Look at linux in itself. Look at the kde and gnome desktops the reiserfs and ext filesystems, the epiphany and firefox web browsers, the xine and mplayer media players, X windows system, I could go on for days. They are very much free, you are part of the community, and the community owns the code. You can modify it anyway you want. And the things you can do with linux compare with and exceed windows (Now granted I want to stay on the topic of music file sharing etc.) but the GNU and heck even the BSD lisence prove, that at least in the software world, using IP is nothing along the lines of helpful to the community. All it does is allow the company with the most market share to create a new interface layer, make it standard. And allow competitors to do nothing about it, for as long as that company exsist.Under the gnu license. Its never about ownership, cause you cant own code (thats their philosophy)

Did I buy a microsoft os because they were the first and only guys to make an operating systems. Nope. I buy it because of the name microsoft, and I can I know that everyone kisses their ass and makes everybit of software compatible with it. With IP all we are sure that we are doing is allowing leading software suites to keep their monopoly and stifle innovation. With software code and a monopoly, you dont have to do something new, you just have to do something different with the code to break down compatibility with competitors.

And now they get the "entitlement" attitude label. Hah. Its something that you just have to except. People dont believe that software, music, and movies, are property, and they dont believe they have to pay for it. And they provide valid reasons for their beliefs.

Basically there are 2 reasons to tell people to shut up on forum:
1) you're tired of listening to them because you think they're wrong
2) you're tired of listening to them because you're wrong and can't handle the truth


3) Im tired of listening to them say the same thing when I disagree with them. I dont sit there and say such and such person is immoral or evil. I just plain disagree with them that Intellectual Property is an absolute. OMG shall I be sent to depths of hell where I shall burn for all eternity in hot pools of lava. But first I have to be arrested and spend years in prison or pay large amount of fines.
Reply #73 from WinCustomize Forums Top
afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place.


Not exactly, and again this is the misconception part of it all. The developers that created these software that we like so much and that enables each person to 'decorate' their desktop as they wish, did so with the purpose that each individual would create their own themes and adorn their own desktop. They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that.
You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free.
Reply #74 from WinCustomize Forums Top
why yes. my point exactly apocalypse67. people's opinions cannot simply be categorized into either those who 'make a living out of their work' and 'ones that just wants to freely take other people's work' perhaps context is important afterall.

perhaps also the issue of copyright is not simply one that can be so easily defined in black & white terms of ownership & theft.


or perhaps one can over estimate the importance of the need (for some of us) to adorn one's computer in the first place particularly when it means tolerating a virtual space which has increasingly become more and more commodified. somehow however i doubt that there will come a time when the "'freely accessible' is no longer such". afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place.


Nice quotes. That I can agree with to an extent. But it must be noted that going around and saying everything is property, is simply not the right way to go. I like what companies like red hat do. They charge for the services of their product, but the product stays free. All companies need to think of something better than IP and use copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks with something better.

I mean some people will have to face facts. Object dock which is being sold by stardock is an immense violation of the intellectual property of Apple's OSX Bar. If that was patented I wouldnt have my object dock. That is just freaking nuts.
Reply #75 from WinCustomize Forums Top
What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking.



au contraire S3vyn i beg to differ. what 'we are talking about here' is control of information. who will control that information & how it will be controlled. 'what america' and western democracy stand for is the right to exploit a resource whether that emerges from original thinking or as a result of simple political expediency.

the moral issues revolving around copyright & ownership are more complex than you seem to suggest. Brazil at this time threatening to break patents on anti-aids drugs in order to maintain their health program being a case in point. capitalism cannot simply be framed in terms of benign meritocracy. it's very nature i would argue is inherently exploitative and one in which moderation is a contradiction in terms.