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.

78,775 views 215 replies
Reply #126 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I have to say that I am amazed at these vocal youngsters who seem to see themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods, when all they are doing is stealing so they can have the music that they "need". What if the big bad oldsters in "power" decided that their computers were not really "property" since the "owners" didn't make them but bought them with money, which of course is not real, just a virtual representation of value?
Reply #127 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Check back on that one in 20 years' time, oui?....


but i do not need to wait 20 years to understand what is already self-evident admin jafo. if one is to believe even conservative estimates file sharing is not confined to a 'minority'. it has gone mainstream as a cultural phenomena. as some of us 'vocal youngsters' have repeatedly said, one can debate the moral ethics of this endlessly it does not change the situation. any amount of sententious moralizing nor legislation is going to change that. perhaps information wants to be free afterall.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #128 from WinCustomize Forums Top
perhaps information wants to be free afterall.


Information does not want. Information is. This is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want to pay. So far I've read denial, rationalization & justification for stealing. Now work on realization and acceptance and then you will be half way home towards being truly free.
Reply #129 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Information does not want. Information is. This is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want to pay. So far I've read denial, rationalization & justification for stealing. Now work on realization and acceptance and then you will be half way home towards being truly free.


since you also choose to quote my own discourse bichur i must assume that your remarks refer directly to my own argument (or are you simply genreralising as well?), in which case it might help to address a few of your more obvious misconceptions. i do not believe i made any claims to defining 'information' in such essentialist terms. i did paraphrase a much quoted slogan and not a little ironically at that. perhaps it was not black and white enough.

neither have i made any defence of filesharing that attempts to rationalize or justify its existence. rather i have attempted to argue that issues of intellectual property and copyright are far more complex than the simplistic moralizing that some participants in this discussion seem prone to.

from the perspective of this discussion perhaps the only realisation i need to work on is that reductionist thinking and an inability to move beyond binaristic positions would appear to be an attribute of age.
Reply #130 from WinCustomize Forums Top

If you think that 'binaristic positions' is a failing of the elderly and that 'oh it's far more complex than that' is an attribute of the genius youth then you are apportioning far too much clout to the knowledge of said youth.

Sure it's 'complex'.....when delved into deeply, but the question 'is unauthorised file-sharing illegal' is not, not in the community/country where this website is based.

Outer Mongolia or Upper Woy Woy might have a different slant, but it's irrellevant as this site is in neither place.

YOU might think you are head-bashing the rights of free-thought and free information exchange....but you are actually just failing to argue a free commodity market, where you are NOT a vendor at ANY price and therefore have no valid input.

Oh yes...blind Freddy can see that 'Money for nothing and your chicks for free' means you can sit on your arse all day...not/never contribute effort to the economy through personal sweat and endeavour and GET anything you want just by clicking a button.

No shades of semantics alters the reality that it is still theft of property.

Yeah, but nothing.  It is.

Fair dinkum and true dinks.

Information sharing is the communication of thought/knowledge.  It's NOT the downloading of an MP3 that is a 'digital' manifestation of a bunch of people banging on musical Instruments for fame and profit.

Let's see how many more spins people can put on justifying 'file-sharing' [excluding the truly legal kind].

Come on, let's see them gears turning....

Reply #131 from WinCustomize Forums Top
YOU might think you are head-bashing the rights of free-thought and free information exchange....but you are actually just failing to argue a free commodity market, where you are NOT a vendor at ANY price and therefore have no valid input.


oh i don't know. somehow i don't think i need to defend the 'free commodity market' at all. how much more free can information become afterall? i have not, and do not refute the legality of your postion admin jafo. one cannot help but think however that it is a little redundant considering the circumstances. perhaps if you reiterate it one more time things will change. afterall both mgm and the title of this discussion appear to have claimed some kind of victory.
Reply #132 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I love the term, binaristic positions.

Well here is one: theft is theft. period. Whether you are stealing a digital copy of some guys singing and banging on musical instruments (a good description of Metallica, in my opinion) OR whether yopu are trying to hotwire a Porsche at 3AM OR whether you are the guy who hacked into Card Systems and stole 40,000 credit card numbers OR (on and on, the list is endless). The point is that YOUR action is on the list. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but that does not negate the fact that it is still a crime. period. end of story.

Now, if you are arguing that EVEN THOUGH it is a crime that you can (and will) continue to do it and that there is little or nothing that can be done to stop you... I will agree with you on that, for the moment anyway. For every technology there is a counter-technology. It is a constant game of "one upsmanship". As a network security professional, I see this played out on a virtual daily basis. Enjoy your P2P stealfest while you can, because like Napster, and like Kazaa soon will be, it will be stopped. There are companies (supposedly) loosing millions of dollars because of this and they will spend 10's of millions to stop it rest assured.

"Just because we have the ability to do a thing, does not mean we should do that thing"
- Somebody famous, but I forget the name.
Reply #133 from WinCustomize Forums Top
For every technology there is a counter-technology. It is a constant game of "one upsmanship"


really cougent. perhaps one cannot doubt your affinity for binaristic oppositions afterall. on the one hand you claim that p2p filesharing will be stopped and yet at the same time you state that for every technology there is a counter technology that perpetuates a 'constant game of "one upmanship". a logicality that seeks to argue both extremes and still be taken seriously. how novel. is that something that comes with age as well?
Reply #134 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Vasqo, age is irrelevant to anything that is and will be decided by lawmakers. Bottom line is; crime committed, crime penalized. Slice it anyway you want it will not change the outcome.
There are things that can be stopped all at once and there are others that have to be stop one by one. The later applies to the current issue.
And if history has taught us something, is that you can get away with some things sometimes, but you cannot get away with everything every time.
Hey, maybe that too comes with age.
Reply #135 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Vasqo, age is irrelevant to anything


mais oui apocalypse67. i could not agree more. however it was not i that has felt the continual need to define this discussion in terms of youth and age, us and them dualisms. my references are purely intentional but i'm sure you already knew that. one could think of it as simply the mirroring back of other participants predilection for binaristic thinking. why there's that term again, one can almost see a pattern developing here, non?
Reply #136 from WinCustomize Forums Top
All this talk about theft and P2P programs. All I see is a few here that argue that P2P is a sort of good thing and the rest say it's stealing. I even see a few "Holier-than thou" attitudes.

You know what?

Let him without sin cast the first stone...

I'll bet EVERYONE and one point or another has downloaded music or cracks for programs or even programs they didn't pay for.

Enough with the bickering it's pointless.
Reply #137 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I recently read an ad for the new Corvette. It stated that the car could travel up to 186mph. It was actually a selling point. I have never seen or even heard of a speed limit in the US remotely approaching 186mph. Furthermore, I don't believe that there are very many people who would buy this car and drive it on an authorized raceway. Of course, this is only one example of something which is advertised as having the ability of exceeding the legal limits of the law. If I sell or give away a piece of software that allows others to similarly "exceed the limits of the law", I am no less guilty than GM for advertising and selling an automobile that has been clearly advertised as having the capabilities of exceeding the limits of the law. The problem rests with the user not the creator. The problem with this ruling is that it does not address the distinction of advertising a product's capabilities versus stating an intended illegal purpose. The companies stated in the ruling seem to have been targeted because of some of their users actions, which although illegal, and propogated by the respective companies' advertising campaigns, were no more the ultimate responsibility of those companies than it would be the responsibility of GM for numerous speeding infraction, automobile crashes, and other speed related deaths, after someone read that the Corvette could go 186mph, went out and purchased one and committed any of the afoermentioned offenses.
Reply #138 from WinCustomize Forums Top
there would appear to be some inconsistencies regarding the ruling and the reality of the world in which we live sembetu. perhaps the issue isn't so black and white afterall. now there's a surprise.
Reply #139 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Sembetu, as I mention a few posts ago, you are comparing apples to oranges. GM could make and advertise a Corvette that reaches 300 MPH that still does not change the country's speed limit. When you go and purchase a 'Vette, you don’t do it thinking "wow, I'm going to push this baby at 180 MPH on the 55 MPH zone where I live" NO, because you know better and you know that you are liable to get a big fat ticket plus a few points on your license. Common sense will tell a person that there are laws to abide by and the consequences of breaking those laws.
Illegally Sharing/Downloading files is a totally different thing. First, you are not paying 40K (as you would for a 'Vette) or any kind of money for a software or a CD (If you did, I’m sure you would think twice before sharing it) and second, the laws are there and dictate that illegally copying, sharing and/or downloading these files is punishable by law.
Again, your common sense should tell you better.
Reply #140 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I've never heard of getting points on my license...
Reply #141 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Kona, that is because you probably live in a state, city or county that doesn’t give points for moving violations.
Here in Dade County (Miami, Fla) you get a ticket ranging from $50 to $120 depending on how many miles you are over the speed limit and in addition to that you get 2-4 points on your license (depending if you have previous infractions) collect enough points and you'll get a year suspension of your driving privileges.
If you don’t believe me, take a trip down here and push 100 MPH on the Florida turnpike. I'll guarantee you'll get a little more than a rush and a fast trip.
Reply #142 from WinCustomize Forums Top
you are comparing apples to oranges. GM could make and advertise a Corvette that reaches 300 MPH that still does not change the country's speed limit... Common sense will tell a person that there are laws to abide by and the consequences of breaking those laws.


it would appear you are not a little averse to confusing two distinct phenomena yourself apocalypse67. in this case the conflation of technolgy and practice. on the one hand you argue for this distinction in regards to sembetu's corvette example - that it is not the technology (or indeed even how it is advertised) but how it is used. and then you conflate the process - 'illegal sharing/downloading files' and the medium that enables that - p2p - as one and the same thing.

as the point has been made previously the issue the mgm/grokster court ruling was addressing was not simply one of illegal filesharing but rather the software that enables this - p2p and whether the two can be defined as one and the same. importantly unlike your own argument, it makes a clear distinction between the medium and the message. perhaps craeonics articulated this point with the most perceptive clarity:

Looking beyond the oversimplification the media presents us with and which the average idiot takes for granted, the actual argumentation by the judges is interesting:
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement"

Note my emphasis. Judging from that bit, it's not so much the file-sharing which it speaks out against, but rather the active promotion of ones app to use it for copyrighted material sharing purposes.


my understanding of sembetu's argument is that there appears to be a discrepancy between the courts ruling and actual commercial practice - an observation that at the very least (as previous respondents have noted) reveals ambiguity if not a little - albeit inadvertent - hypocrisy.

perhaps if we are to move beyond the 'oversimplification which the 'average idiot takes for granted' it might help to acknowledge the finer nuances of the argument in the first place. non?
Reply #143 from WinCustomize Forums Top

'Finer nuance' is a cute term for finding the spin of justification for property theft.

P2P in itself is not illegal.  What it's most commonly used for is.

Reply #144 from WinCustomize Forums Top
'Finer nuance' is a cute term for finding the spin of justification for property theft.

P2P in itself is not illegal. What it's most commonly used for is.


that interpretation is subjective and entirely yours admin jafo. according to the court ruling however, which afterall is one aspect of the civil society which you have so pedantically championed, finer nuances apparently appear to count. on the one hand it would seem you wish to argue for the authority of established institutions whilst on the other reinterpreting their decisions and dismissing that which does not fit into your preconceived notions of the way things 'should' be. perhaps the desire to contain opposing thoughts and represent them as one is another of those defining elements of age that you so like to refer to.
Reply #145 from WinCustomize Forums Top
really cougent. perhaps one cannot doubt your affinity for binaristic oppositions afterall. on the one hand you claim that p2p filesharing will be stopped and yet at the same time you state that for every technology there is a counter technology that perpetuates a 'constant game of "one upmanship". a logicality that seeks to argue both extremes and still be taken seriously. how novel. is that something that comes with age as well?


Ahh to be young and know everything again...

To deny the ever increasing advance of technology would be ... well "senile".

Napster in its original form existed for a while and then went away.
Kazaa, Morpheous, etc. have had a good run now for a while; but I believe their days are now numbered.
BitTorrent is not yet on the law enforcement radar, so it will still have time to thrive.
BUT, it too shall pass.
Microsoft is already working on their own version of it, and a counter to it.
Will there be something after BT? Of course.
Will it too then be engineered or prosecuted out of existence? Of course it will.
As long as their is a demand for "thieves tools" someone will create or provide them, but corporate America and the judicial system will just as eagerly continue to pursue and stop them.

Perhaps it is something that comes with age to be able to see (not agree with) multiple sides of an issue. Perhaps it is just a talent of the young to be able to see only one side and know it is right simply because they want it to be.
Reply #146 from WinCustomize Forums Top

on the one hand it would seem you wish to argue for the authority of established institutions whilst on the other reinterpreting their decisions and dismissing that which does not fit into your preconceived notions of the way things 'should' be.

Elucidate.

Reply #147 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Vasqo, you are like a person with a cement block tied to the ankles trying to stay above water.
As it stands right now, illegal copying, sharing and downloading of material that is not your own work is against the law and it is punishable. No buts no if's.
Having a website or providing a way where such material is been exchange makes a person liable.
And no matter how many arguments might spark or how many comparisons to automobiles, guns, etc might arise it's not going to change the Supreme Court decision. Period.
Reply #148 from WinCustomize Forums Top
it is not a difficult explication admin jafo. finer nuance is not simply a 'cute term for finding the spin of justification for property theft'. rather this is yet another reductionist reading on your part of a situation that is far more complex. if the mgm vs grokster case were so straight forward an affair of theft as you and others have repeatedly tried to suggest then the court would have ruled otherwise and p2p software/filesharing would now be illegal. but they did not and perhaps with good reason. reasons that have little to do with black and white moral posturing and everything to do with the inherent complexities of the case.

finer nuance refers to the distinction between actual technology and practice, a distinction that the court obviously feels equally of importance and that has otherwise oft been elided in this discussion. finer nuance refers to the court's emphasis instead upon the ability to prove promotion of p2p software to infringe copyright rather than the process that that technology actually enables. finer nuance refers to how problematic this distinction may be in interpreting let alone in enforcing. finer nuance refers to the contradiction inherent within this ruling in regard to already pre-existing conventions of commercial promotion as highlighted by sembetu. finer nuance refers to the problematic of defining 'ownership' in an age where the very technology upon which that ownership is based continually threatens to undermine the boundaries of possession and control.

by continually reiterating your position admin jafo in singular moralistic terms that defines p2p filesharing purely in terms of theft does little for exploring the complexities of these issues other than to proscribe their frames of reference. further, by defining your argument as you have done in previous posts by the legitimacy of social institutions and then reductively reinterpreting and dismissing the complexity of this case as characterised by the courts own ruling is arguably an act of narrow minded ignorance or hypocrisy.
Reply #149 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Oh, for heaven's sake it's not complicated.

File sharing as a concept CAN be legal.  The legality stems from the appropriate OWNERSHIP of that which is being shared.

The courts can rule that P2P is not a problem, only what it is used FOR.  IF it is used to distribute property against the wishes of the property owner then it is a medium being used to facilitate theft.....and is identical to the person sitting in the Cinema with his video camera making a 'copy'.

In that case it can be determined that using the video camera in a Cinema for such end is 'illegal'. [simply because you WANT a copy does not make it just, legal, OR right].

It does NOT mean that using a video camera is illegal, or that a camera user is evil or any OTHER such tripe you attempt to ascribe to my comments.

HOW you use it is the problem.

HOW you break a speed-limit in a souped-up car is the problem.

WHAT you do with that 'legally-purchased' gun is the problem.

WHAT you do with that 'legally-purchased' software is the problem.

YOU can break the law by selling a burnt copy of it on a street corner.

YOU can break the law by giving it away freely on a street corner.

YOU can break the law by giving it away freely on P2P.

So what if the courts were/are lamenting the complexities of restricting P2P to legitimate use.  Yes, that's hard...how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable?

The difficulty isn't moral or ethical it's simply logistical.

Reply #150 from WinCustomize Forums Top
The difficulty isn't moral or ethical it's simply logistical.


why yes admin jafo. it would seem you have the capability of grasping the finer nuances of this argument afterall. however, as the court ruling implies, the solution, or 'logistics' as you put it, involved in resolving this issue i would hardly define as simple.

So what if the courts were/are lamenting the complexities of restricting P2P to legitimate use. Yes, that's hard...how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable?


because admin jafo it is those same complexities that make the claims of moral victory by mgm, the moralizing that has come to characterize so much of this discussion, and even, as others have observed, the outcome of the court ruling ultimately redundant. how does one control something 'virtually uncontrollable' besides endless reiterating that it is wrong?