LinuxQuestions.org - Supreme Court Ruling Ridiculous

- General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)

- - Supreme Court Ruling Ridiculous (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/supreme-court-ruling-ridiculous-337769/)

Supreme Court Ruling Ridiculous

Wow! Just another way to crowd our court system with more frivolous suits.

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_06.php#003748

Does this mean that software companies and possibly Sharware authors will be resposible for the use of their software? Gee if I design a Gun in Acad will I be charged with murder?

Just a thought

KC

As this is a news item and is not a Linux news article, I am moving this to General

Re: Supreme Court Ruling Ridiculous

Quote:

Originally posted by kencaz
Wow! Just another way to crowd our court system with more frivolous suits.

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_06.php#003748

Does this mean that software companies and possibly Sharware authors will be resposible for the use of their software? Gee if I design a Gun in Acad will I be charged with murder?

Just a thought

KC

As I understand it, this ruling only pertains to software that is promoted/advertised for the express purpose of finding and downloading things one should not. Bit torrent, for example may not fit the definition. I expect that the ruling will be tested however. Time will tell.

It's a perfectly good ruling that all legitimate computer users should be happy with.

Quote:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promotion 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 by third parties.

Note what this means: Grokster was liable because they encouraged MP3 swapping. Not because they made it possible.

The judge ALSO said:

Quote:

The advantage of peer-to-peer networks over information networks of other types shows up in their substantial and growing popularity. Because they need no central computer server to mediate the exchange of information or files among users, the high-bandwidth communications capacity for a server may be dispensed with, and the need for costly server storage space is eliminated. Since copies of a file (particularly a popular one) are available on many users' computers, file requests and retrievals may be faster than on other types of networks, and since file exchanges do not travel through a server, communications can take place between any computers that remain connected to the network without risk that a glitch in the server will disable the network in its entirety. Given these benefits in security, cost, and efficiency, peer-to-peer networks are employeed to store and distribute electronic files by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.

They're recognising that P2P networks have widespread legitimate uses. Any media corp. that tries to use this ruling to say "Shut down Bittorrent (or whatever) because the Supreme Court says so" will be laughed out of court.

Let's face it, the main reason people were concerned about this ruling was because they didn't want legitimate P2P to be tainted by the "P2p = Rip off MP3s" brigade. This ruling will do nothing but support this: Advertise your P2P as a legitimate service, you're untouchable; advertise it as a copyright-infringement tool, you get shut down.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by oneandoneis2
It's a perfectly good ruling that all legitimate computer users should be happy with.

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promotion 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 by third parties.

Note what this means: Grokster was liable because they encouraged MP3 swapping. Not because they made it possible.

Well, they made a pretty general statement. What constitutes "object of promotion" that's just a lawsuite waiting to happen. Plus we already have copyright laws that protect against infringement!!! Go after the infringers then!

If I purchased a car that advertised that it could go 180mph and encoraged that. Would it be their fault if I got a ticket. Plus Which, I don't even know why the Supreme court even heard this case... It is not even an issue of constitutional rights...

Hope this made a little sense...

KC

Quote:

If I purchased a car that advertised that it could go 180mph and encoraged that. Would it be their fault if I got a ticket.

Possibly. When did you last see a car advert that mentioned the car's top speed? I don't think I ever have.

You've actually given a pretty good example: It's perfectly legal to build and sell a car that can break the speed limit. But if they were to advertise it with "Buy our car and drive 180mph on the road!" they'd probably run into serious trouble right away.

That's the difference between supplying a P2P network and telling everybody "Use our network to trade MP3s illegally!"

Just because something is in MP3 format doesn't make it copyrighted material. So encouraging the swapping of MP3s can not, in and of itself, constitute promoting copyright infringement. Seems to me logic has left the court house.

What happened here is the music industry, having enjoyed the oligopoly they created to overcharge consumers, is now flexing the political muscle they paid for over the years. Crooked politicians who in turn nominated crooked judges, are complying with the oligopoly's demands. That's all there is to it.

And BTW, Ferrari and Lamborghini routinely advertise the top speed of their vehicles.

LOL who cares? Bit torrent is the best!

This ruling involves the Supreme Court interpreting an act of Congress (the Copyright Act), not the Constitution.

In other words, if Congress doesn't like whichever way the court rules, they can simply pass legislation to overrule them.

A pro-Grokster ruling would have likely spurred Congress into action - giving Orrin Hatch and his ilk a chance to overturn the Sony decision, explicitly left alone here.

There aren't too many progressive voices on IP in Congress. Kinda funny considering how much the conservative right loves to bash liberal Hollywood.