Yarr The Pirate!
https://w.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/

The future of file sharing in the balance?
https://w.yarrthepirate.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5508		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Mikey [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  The future of file sharing in the balance?
Court Rules File-Sharing Networks Can Be Held Liable for Illegal Use

*
E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Reprints



By LORNE MANLY
Published: June 27, 2005

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that Internet file-sharing services like Grokster and StreamCast Networks could be held responsible if they encouraged users to trade songs, movies and television shows online without paying for them.
Skip to next paragraph
Dennis Brack/Bloomberg News

Proponents of Internet file sharing marched in front of the Supreme Court in March. The Supreme Court ruled that Internet file-sharing services can be held liable for copyright infringement.
Multimedia
Video: Supreme Court Rules on File-sharing

Text of the Opinion
Stephanie Berger for The New York Times

Mark Gorton of LimeWire says file-sharing software will remain on the Internet, no matter what decision the Supreme Court makes.

The case, which pitted the entertainment industry against technology companies in the continuing battle over the proper balance between protecting copyrights and fostering innovation, overturns lower court decisions that found the file-sharing networks were not liable because their services allowed for substantial legitimate uses. The justices said there was enough evidence that the Web sites were seeking to profit from their customers' use of the illegally shared files for the case to go back to lower court for trial.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court in Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster.

The decision was hailed by the major Hollywood studios and global music labels, which had warned that rampant online sharing of content not only harmed their bottom lines, but ultimately could inhibit the creation of new content. The recording industry has been mired in a sales slump for most of this decade, and it has blamed song-swapping over the Internet for that decline. While movies and television shows are more difficult to trade online because of their greater file sizes, technological advances are making that movement increasingly easy and threaten the cash cow that DVD sales have become for the studios.

"The Supreme Court sent a strong and clear message that businesses based on theft should not and will not be allowed to flourish," Dan Glickman, the president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement. "This decision will be of utmost importance as we continue developing innovative and legitimate ways to marry content and technology so consumers can access entertainment on a variety of devices."

There was some relief expressed among lawyers and advocacy groups aligned with Grokster, in that the Supreme Court seemed to clearly focus its attention not on the legality of peer-to-peer technology itself, but on the behavior of players seeking to make a profit from the technology.

But there was widespread concern that the court, which provided little in the way of describing what might qualify as behavior aimed at encouraging infringement, has opened up the door to prohibitive legal battles that just might stifle future innovations.

"The court has now given as precedent to the whole world of digital technology companies a very difficult road to follow," said Richard Taranto, the lawyer who argued the case on behalf of Grokster and StreamCast before the Supreme Court.

"The immediate impact for the future of our case is not clear," he said, but the impact on future technologies "is a chilling one."

Michael Weiss, the chief executive of StreamCast, seemed to welcome the chance to prove that his company did nothing to encourage illegal behavior among its users. "We'll have another day in court," he said. "Make that several days in court."

Grokster and StreamCast had argued that there were many legitimate uses for their technology, like the transmission of material in the public domain, and had pointed to the Supreme Court's decision more than 20 years ago involving the Betamax video recorder sold by the Sony Corporation to bolster its claims that they were not responsible for any copyright violations by their customers.

The Federal District Court in Los Angeles had ruled for the defendants in the case, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco affirmed the decision last August.

But the opinion by Justice Souter dismissed the Sony Betamax comparison. Unlike the Sony case, he argued that the Grokster and StreamCast sought to capitalize on the online trading of copyrighted material and that there was "no evidence" that either company tried very hard to block or impede that sharing. "The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement," he wrote.

The court decision, analysts said, provides media companies with the legal support to use lawsuits as an economic weapon against the file sharing networks, in addition to its efforts against individuals the movie and record industries accused of widespread sharing of files.

"This is significant win for the record and movie industries," said Gene Munster, a media analyst for Piper Jaffray & Company. "It means that file sharing networks - and not just end users - have to share some of the responsibility for piracy."

The ruling, according to analysts, could provide a lift for legal music online businesses like Apple's iStore, RealNetworks and Napster, and the emerging online movie services like Movielink, CinemaNow and Starz on RealNetworks. But that depends on consumer behavior.

"The question is, will the people who have been stealing music and movies now step up and pay for it?" Mr. Munster said. "That remains to be seen."

Steve Lohr and Tom Zeller Jr. contributed reporting for this article
Author:  Hobbes [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
this seems familiar... lets see, when napster came out... then again when morphous came out... and once more when kazaa came out... I don't think they get it, they can't stop it. shut down one and another will pop up.
Author:  Mikey [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
The only difference here is the Courts are now saying these file sharing networks can be held liable.
Author:  Jimbean [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
um no.. this is horseshit this is like holding a liquor store responsible for your dad's alcoholism. ppls files are their own property and should they choose to share their property with other ppl through the use of a FREE program than they should be able to do so with no negative repercussions to them or the co. they're using to share these files. I never once heard of anyone getting arrested for copying a tape or cd and giving it to their friend, because it's a ridiculous law and to prove it you have to infringe upon ppl's privacy. isn't this the same sort of thing? Where's the discrepancy
Author:  Parade [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
i agree with jim, its like there telling me not to share.. wtf? thats the way i was raised.
Author:  Ponuh [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
ike wrote:
i agree with jim, its like there telling me not to share.. wtf? thats the way i was raised.


Bahaha, that's not a good arguement, lol.
Author:  Parade [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
mind giving one then?
Author:  Ponuh [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
ike wrote:
mind giving one then?


People just want free stuff?
Author:  Parade [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
works for me! bisicly i think that its not going to go through. even if they did somthing.. it is NOT going to stop file sharing.. end of story
Author:  Pantherxx [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
NOTHING IS FREE and LIFE IS ALSO NOT FREE so we are suck working to make monies to put roof over our heads, food, car, gas. soo we are SCREWED. :wink:
Author:  Rahsten [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Hobbes wrote:
this seems familiar... lets see, when napster came out... then again when morphous came out... and once more when kazaa came out... I don't think they get it, they can't stop it. shut down one and another will pop up.


well, i guess there's only one solution. Chop off the serpent's head, in other words...shut down the internet. Back to the dark ages we go...lol.

I live in Japan and the only way I get to watch on a regular basis the TV shows I miss from back home is by downloading them. Before I bought a computer over here I had friends and family tape shit and send it to me but that got pricy sending tons of videotapes. Filesharing has been great. I really see no difference between taping and mailing something from TV and downloading and sharing it on the net. Although one of them they are going to try and stop? Why not the other?

So now theyre going to try and prohibit downloading television shows. How many of you tape television shows that you may miss and what not 'cause you're working......are they gonna prohibit that too? I agree that only with a complete invasion of the public's privacy are they going to be able to stop this...so much for living in a 'free' world with a right to privacy. Fuckin' fascists. Like the music and film industries don't make enough money off us measley plebians as it is...i know that's not the point...but still

:evil:
Author:  Reinheld [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Bit Torrent is the wave of the future.
Author:  Ponuh [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Reinheld wrote:
Bit Torrent is the wave of the future.


I agree. You can't really put a stop to something like Bit Torrent, either. Well, they could but they'd REALLY need to shock us all into giving it up.

I got Dream Theater Live At Budokan and Team America from my new friend, Bit Torrent :)
Author:  Drakkan [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Jimbean wrote:
um no.. this is horseshit this is like holding a liquor store responsible for your dad's alcoholism. ppls files are their own property and should they choose to share their property with other ppl through the use of a FREE program than they should be able to do so with no negative repercussions to them or the co. they're using to share these files. I never once heard of anyone getting arrested for copying a tape or cd and giving it to their friend, because it's a ridiculous law and to prove it you have to infringe upon ppl's privacy. isn't this the same sort of thing? Where's the discrepancy


Unfortunately the courts already do something kinda like you said here. Say a guy goes into a restaurant for this example lets just say Chili's and he has a couple drinks at the bar. If he is drunk and proceeds to go and drive home, gets in a wreck and kills someone the restaurant is actually held liable.

I agree this sucks, but I agree with Reinheld here Bit Torrents are the next thing, and will be very tough to stop.

I just think this rulling is going to kill all the p2p programs like winmx,kazaa,etc etc, which is unfortunate.
Author:  Rahsten [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:43 am ]
Post subject: 
so, what are some good Bit Torrent apps for Mac? :lol:
Author:  Morachi [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:35 am ]
Post subject: 
I say screw those greedy bastards!! Most of us that actually like a CD, DVD, etc. will go out and buy it. Most of the stuff coming out today is pure crap though. On CDs maybe one or two songs are cool, so why should I buy the whole CD for only one or two songs? If they figure out that they can't control the people sharing files, they'll probably lobby the government to police the internet.
Author:  Arim [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Morachi wrote:
I say screw those greedy bastards!! Most of us that actually like a CD, DVD, etc. will go out and buy it. Most of the stuff coming out today is pure crap though. On CDs maybe one or two songs are cool, so why should I buy the whole CD for only one or two songs? If they figure out that they can't control the people sharing files, they'll probably lobby the government to police the internet.


when you buy songs online you can choose "Buy album for 10+ dollars" or "buy 1 song for 99 cents"

if only itunes had a better selection
Author:  Morachi [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Arim wrote:
Morachi wrote:
I say screw those greedy bastards!! Most of us that actually like a CD, DVD, etc. will go out and buy it. Most of the stuff coming out today is pure crap though. On CDs maybe one or two songs are cool, so why should I buy the whole CD for only one or two songs? If they figure out that they can't control the people sharing files, they'll probably lobby the government to police the internet.


when you buy songs online you can choose "Buy album for 10+ dollars" or "buy 1 song for 99 cents"

if only itunes had a better selection


Ya, my g/f does that. I just find songs on her computer that I like and copy them. >=)

Like you said, they don't sell a lot of the good stuff.
Author:  fallenseraph [ Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Welcome to 2003 guys.

I'm see you're concerned about the future of file sharing but BitTorrent is soooooo 2004. The new thing nowadays is to kidnap your favorite singer/artist/musical group, hold them at gunpoint make them make a new song for you only. And when that doesn't work just sue them for millions of dollars claiming child molestation (GENIOUS!)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/