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.

78,772 views 215 replies
Reply #151 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Having a website or providing a way where such material is been exchange makes a person liable.


which part of that sentence do you think doesn't quite resonate with the court ruling apocalypse67?
Reply #152 from WinCustomize Forums Top
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.


since you choose to quote me cougent i assume your observations are also a response to my own discourse. so.. what exactly is this 'only one side and know it to be right simply because i want it to be' do you think is applicable to my argument? indeed exactly 'which' side do you think it is that i am defending and haven't we already been through this?
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #153 from WinCustomize Forums Top

and haven't we already been through this?

Heavens no.  I'm sure there's a million more ways for those-who-want-ALL-uses-of-P2P-to-remain-legitimate to explain why they are NOT guilty of theft.

If it's put into the 'too hard' basket by legislators then one of two things will happen.  Either affected Companies/entities will force prohibitive costs and or usage limitations/difficulties upon their customers....[think Product Activation].

Or...

The process of file-sharing will be criminalized, irrespective of legitimacy....[somewhat unfortunate, but it is ALWAYS the people who break the rules who ruin it for those who don't].

When an engine exists which enables criminality it is usually dealt with via prohibition or restriction.

Reply #154 from WinCustomize Forums Top
and haven't we already been through this?


i believe you are taking me out of context admin jafo. that reply was self-evidently directed towards cougent which i am sure he is quite capable of answering himself.

the context of your own argument however remains the same. as long as you choose to construct this dialogue in binary terms then no doubt you will also continue to see my own position as that of an apologist for illegal file sharing. i dont' really know how many ways one can say that i have not and do not refute the legality of your own position. neither do i know of how many ways one can argue that the complexity of the issues involved in this case lie beyond simplistic moralizing.

If it's put into the 'too hard' basket by legislators then one of two things will happen. Either affected Companies/entities will force prohibitive costs and or usage limitations/difficulties upon their customers....[think Product Activation].


think open source.

The process of file-sharing will be criminalized, irrespective of legitimacy....

and as you yourself have observed admin jafo '.how to legislate or control illegal use of something [currently] virtually uncontrollable'

perhaps one can sympathize with your need to reduce this issue to one of simplistic morality. things are so much simpler when they're black and white, non?
Reply #155 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'm beginning to think it's my Aussie accent....Kiwis never understand it....
Reply #156 from WinCustomize Forums Top
appearances can be deceiving admin jafo. this is neither my computer nor is that my name, gender or nationality. such is the nature of assumptions non?
Reply #157 from WinCustomize Forums Top

So there's some OTHER reason for this woolly-headed thinking ....

So...you are not who you say you are...and your opinions probably belong to someone else as well....bit pointless, really.

Anonymity is for children....[always good to protect the innocent].  With adults it's generally because they're up to 'no good'.

I'm out of this conversation now, simply because I don't debate with the faceless.

You either stand up to be heard as a valid individual with a valid opinion or you remain nefarious and unaccountable and uncounted.

Seeya.

Reply #158 from WinCustomize Forums Top

UserID: 267887
Real Name: max holder
Email: xxxxx@ihug.co.nz
Member Since: 5/26/2002

Let's hope Mister Holder is aware of his account being used by a third party.  If not then things needs must be adjusted....'non'?

Reply #159 from WinCustomize Forums Top
since you choose to quote me cougent i assume your observations are also a response to my own discourse. so.. what exactly is this 'only one side and know it to be right simply because i want it to be' do you think is applicable to my argument? indeed exactly 'which' side do you think it is that i am defending and haven't we already been through this?


I think you are defending (or trying to justify) your undoubtedly large collection of stolen music, movies and software. Is that plain enough for you?

I have NONE of the above (rebuffing another user earlier who suggested we all do) and I have the credit card debt to prove it!

And with that I follow Admin Jafo's lead and bid you farewell, I too find it a waste of time to debate someone who hides from reality.
Reply #160 from WinCustomize Forums Top
So...you are not who you say you are..


and exactly who do i say i am admin jafo? i do not believe i have at any time attempted to deny i am anything i am not. the very fact that i chose to address your assumption about my nationality would bespeak this. the fact that this is neither my computer, nor my name does not mean i am not related to the person who that actually is or indeed that some kind of deception is being intentionally promoted.

the fact that i am operating under a pseudonym is not only a convention of message board forums and a reflection of the norm but also fundamental characteristic of the medium in which you have shown so little grasp of. the very nature of the net is that one never knows with certainty who one is speaking to. the fact that you act as if this were not the case has little do with reality and everything to do with rigidity of your own beliefs. the fact that i am not who you have assumed me to be has little to do with pretending to be someone else and everything to do with expediency. we are both students and we both share the same space.

the fact that appearance in terms of my identity is more important than the actual content of my argument merely confirms the superficiality of your own response to this dialogue admin jafo.

once more you choose to interpret as 'fact' what are erroneous assumptions about a situation which reflect your predisposition to seeing the world the way you imagine it to be rather than the way it actually is.

more disturbingly, particularly for other subscribers of this site is the fact that you feel entitled to disclosing private information justified upon your own ill-conceived assumptions. i have not broken any rules admin jafo that would justify your breach of trust other than to disclose what is transparent and the behavioural norm for the majority - we write under nom de plumes.

your own authoritarian response is simply in keeping with the pompous self-righteousness that has characterised so much of your dialogue throughout this conversation and reflects poorly upon this site.
Reply #161 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Word of advice: It is not wise to anger Jafo.
Reply #162 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think you are defending (or trying to justify) your undoubtedly large collection of stolen music, movies and software. Is that plain enough for you?


it would seem cougenet that it is enough for you and others in this discussion to simply 'think' things are a certain way for them to be true without the need for actual evidence that would support your claims. on the one hand you claim the monopoly on being able to see 'multiple sides of an issue' and yet continue to act as if this issue were simply black and white; a for or against, a youth against the wisdom of age. you can talk the talk but apparently you cannot walk the walk.

rather it is enough to accuse me of theft simply because it suits your own bigoted position. one can but wonder who it is that is actually hiding from reality here.
Reply #163 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Word of advice: It is not wise to anger Jafo


and what relevance does that have to this conversation kona0197 other than to reinforce the authoritarian nature that has come to characterise this discourse?
Reply #164 from WinCustomize Forums Top

it would seem cougenet that it is enough for you and others in this discussion to simply 'think' things are a certain way for them to be true without the need for actual evidence that would support your claims.

Looks like we're forced to do that since people demand their anonymity and subterfuge.

No 'private' info was disclosed...infact your schoolfriend's email addy was removed.  I think it's really a bit of an 'issue' that you are NOT using your own account to access the site as any adverse repercussions would impact upon its rightful 'owner'.

It seems this cavalier approach to property rights extends to your roommate's 'belongings' and IDENTITY as well.

your own authoritarian response is simply in keeping with the pompous self-righteousness that has characterised so much of your dialogue throughout this conversation and reflects poorly upon this site.

So...to hold an opposing view, one that reflects the opinion of the site's contributors [skinners] in general is now 'pompous self-righteousness'?  It really sounds like you are simply out of step with reality, lost in the fantasy world of theoretical ideology.

Here's the thing....

Since your stance on life, the universe and the whole damn thing is that it's 'much less black and white', etc....what say you explain it for all the dumb klutzes out there like me?  You haven't actually SAID anything yet, except refute others' postulations.

Oh....you better stick to simple words, too, just so we knuckle-draggers can keep up with the cognoscenti....particularly those who spell 'cougenet' so cogently...or did you mean as in  Citizen cougent  ?...Spell checker 

Reply #165 from WinCustomize Forums Top
So...to hold an opposing view, one that reflects the opinion of the site's contributors [skinners] in general is now 'pompous self-righteousness'?

i believe that description was used to describe your own conduct specifically admin jafo; an observation that your behavior would seem to so eloquently support. let the text speak for itself.

It seems this cavalier approach to property rights extends to your roommate's 'belongings' and IDENTITY as well.

once more you make moralistic assumptions about the nature of my sitution without fully knowing the facts. i have explained already how i have come to share this account name. there is no 'issue' as you put it. the rightful owner is my partner.

No 'private' info was disclosed...infact your schoolfriend's email addy was removed. I think it's really a bit of an 'issue' that you are NOT using your own account to access the site as any adverse repercussions would impact upon its rightful 'owner'

the fact that you chose to disclose his name without his consent simply reflects the lack of respect for his personal privacy that you feel you have the right to breach. preaching the morality of ownership whilst feeling one has the right to disclose information without the consent of the owner - no matter how insignificant that maybe to you - simply reflects a hypocritical arrogance and your own 'cavalier' attitude towards the very people you claim to have a responsibility in representing - the members of this site.

Since your stance on life, the universe and the whole damn thing is that it's 'much less black and white', etc....what say you explain it for all the dumb klutzes out there like me?

in reading back over this discussion admin jafo and the tired repetitiveness of your own and other's knee-jerk responses one suspects it would be easier to resolve the p2p issue first.

i have not and do not claim to have the answers admin jafo. i have simply argued that the issue of file sharing has a complexity that goes beyond the simplistic morality that you and others have felt a need to continually frame this discussion in.

the conduct however with which you have engaged with this discussion; the peremptory way you have dismissed ideas that do not fit into your two dimensional view of the world however does speak for itself. the puerility of your need to draw attention to my spelling and the misrepresentation of information as facts that have been revealed to be assumptions being a case in point. perhaps it's time for you to dress those knuckles.
Reply #166 from WinCustomize Forums Top
the fact that you chose to disclose his name without his consent simply reflects the lack of respect for his personal privacy that you feel you have the right to breach. preaching the morality of ownership whilst feeling one has the right to disclose information without the consent of the owner - no matter how insignificant that maybe to you - simply reflects a hypocritical arrogance and your own 'cavalier' attitude towards the very people you claim to have a responsibility in representing - the members of this site.


Vasgo - sorry to tell you but anyone can look up your user details simply by clicking on your name. Those user details are not private.
Reply #167 from WinCustomize Forums Top
it would be easier to resolve the p2p issue first.


The p2p issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court, there is nothing you, me, jafo or anyone here at the forum can say that will change the ruling. Continuance of arguments would be like beating a dead horse.

But I do find it odd that a highly opinioned person such as you would hide or engage in such prolonged debate under someone else's account. Call me controversial but if I am to vent my opinions on any particular issue, I want those involved in the debate to know who I am and where I stand.
Reply #168 from WinCustomize Forums Top

vasgo ...so...the "issue of file sharing has a complexity that goes beyond the simplistic morality that you and others have felt a need to continually frame this discussion in"....and it is SO complex you can only allude to it without explaining or clarifying.

It is presumptuous to ascribe 'complexity' to the abjectly simple just to proclaim a higher sentience.

One and one equals two.....but learned philosophers will debate that actuality in terms of esotericity for hours on end but it does NOT alter the reality.

Hypothetical debates and mindgames of intellect do not assuage the real dynamics of society.

But, we're all waiting with baited breath while you expound upon, and plumb the depths of this complexity that only you can deduce.

The floor is yours.

Reply #169 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Re the anonymity of the nick, yes, any person logged onto this site can see the details...my editing of the email addy is called 'censorship for privacy and considered 'PC'', but essentially has little or no effect.

Clicking on my nick will bring up my genuine information and not that of a room-mate...

 

Reply #170 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ok I guess I will step back into the fray here. There are a lot of issues that people fail to realize

1. The intellectual property argument is not the same as the copyrights argument. I would say put that argument somewhere else.

2. No the supreme court is not the gurus on life affairs. To say that the right choice is the one imposed by law is just stupid. They are those that impose the law. God forbid they follow some Kant's and Socrates ethical godlines.

3. This issue was not resolved. Did any of you actually read the ruling? Anyone who is promoting the sharing of copyrighted materials is subject to punishment. What the hell does that mean in law. Ill tell you what it means. Crap. This doesnt focus on people who profit from it, or people who use it or people who dont explicitly write software to prevent it, just people who promote it.

4. Just because its p2p doesnt mean its evil. If you think so then get off the iternet. There is a difference between kazaa and bittorrent. P2P is used for MUCH more than downloading copyrighted or patented material. The number of illegal stuff that is being transfered from person to person is non-exsistent to the legal stuff being sent. Dont forget that data used to encompass pornography, rare files, mix tapes, tv-shows, skits, comics, open software is being shared at a much higher rate.

5. This is a complex issue. You cant deny the fact that this has 170 comments. And you can call people theives all you want,but that wont help your credibility. In debates, name calling gets you knowhere. And saying that one person is right and that another is wrong in something like this leads to lots of bs posts.
Reply #171 from WinCustomize Forums Top

A debate is a formalized airing of opposing views...and the interesting aspect is that those views need not be actually held by the debaters at all.

What is really wanted here is not a 'debate' but a clarification, a pronouncement, if you will - a determination of what impact an isolated court ruling will have on the world at large.

Firstly, thanks to the AUS Supreme Court there's precedence for one country's 'determination' to impact on others outside that country's jurisdiction, due to the all-pervasiveness of the Internet.

It's of Global significance and reinforces the concepts/values of Copyrights and IP held to by Western society in general.

Think of the ruling as "oh, sh**, cars can go really bloody fast...we better impose some restrictions so people don't get 'hurt'".

I'd love to see the figures demonstrating that P2P is MORE commonly used for actual legitimate and legal reasons than copyright violation.  My guess is they'd be vapourware...

Reply #172 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Vasgo - sorry to tell you but anyone can look up your user details simply by clicking on your name. Those user details are not private.


then perhaps you might wish to clarify the details of my 'nick' with those that admin jafo felt he had the right to disclose kona0197. if my partner had wished to share his actual name then that is his choice. he also has a right to privacy. it was not admin jafo's right to disclose that information since it was not his 'right to share' no matter how insignificant that information turned out to be. does this sound like a familiar argument?
Reply #173 from WinCustomize Forums Top
The p2p issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court, there is nothing you, me, jafo or anyone here at the forum can say that will change the ruling. Continuance of arguments would be like beating a dead horse.

i don't believe i have stated at any time that i disagree with the supreme court decision apocalypse67 let alone wishing to change it. i'm sure however the riaa, the games, the motion picture and the software industry will be greatly relieved to hear that the p2p issue has been resolved.

But I do find it odd that a highly opinioned person such as you would hide or engage in such prolonged debate under someone else's account. Call me controversial but if I am to vent my opinions on any particular issue, I want those involved in the debate to know who I am and where I stand.


well yes i suppose it might appear odd why i would 'engage in such a prolonged debate under someone else's account and then disclose publicly that i am not that person. obviously i have something to hide. or perhaps it says more about the person who cannot make that distinction. perhaps as this discussion has revealed the distinction is to subtle.
Reply #174 from WinCustomize Forums Top
 vasgo kindly read #169, thanks...
Reply #175 from WinCustomize Forums Top
It is presumptuous to ascribe 'complexity' to the abjectly simple just to proclaim a higher sentience.


that this is yours and other's experience has been only too well expressed throughout this discussion admin jafo. however the 'complexity' that i so 'presumptuously ascribe', has, unlike your own position, little to do with my own interpretation and everything to do with the way in which the court ruling has chosen to address this case. if the issue of p2p filesharing were as 'abjectly simple' as you make out admin jafo then the practice would now be illegal. but it is not. rather, as has already been stated, the court's ruling addresses the finer nuances of the case - emphasising proof of the promotion of illegal file sharing over the technology that enables that file sharing.

but we have already been here. the fact that you require an instruction course in grasping these finer nuances that needs to be repeated either bespeaks your own intellectual obtuseness or the onset of senility. it's difficult to tell.