Your supreme courts really do suck

[Entsuropi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

Strike 2!

[Spriggan]

I agree with this one.

[JP Dogberry]

Yes, and if I stab someone, it's the knife manufacturers fault.

If I pour petrol on someone and light them on fire, we blame the creator of the matches and petrol.

If I smother someone's head with a pillow, the pillow manufacturer is to blame.

Of COURSE file sharing software writers must be responsible for what people do with it.

[fuzzyoctopus]

In this case the intent is to give people the opportunity to share MOSTLY illegal files.

[Spriggan]

JP you probably haven't even read the ruling and if you have you're reaction is just kool-aid and is a clear over reaction.

The ruling was a wither or not companies that design software for the express use of breaking the law (and no one argued that P2P wasn't used for that) and if the designers "condoned" the illegal use.

Pillows weren't made for killing

Matches and oil weren't made for killing

Napster and like software was made for stealing.

It's about time the laws here got serious about fixing the blight that is theft on the Internet, you're just upset because you're free ride might be over and you'll actual have to get your movies and music legally!  Oh the horror of the thought!

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

yeah but that isnt the intent of PTP. The intent is to transfer info faster than by using hard copies. Sure that gets used for crime, just like people speed on roads. Now however completely legal sharing ( recording and loaning a copy of that TV show you saw last week to a friend which is legal under the Betamax descision) and legitimate software distribution may be hurt by this. I guess it sucks to use linux builds now. I suspect the studio early release of Star Wars to Bittorrent has a lot to do with the end result. This is going to come up again I bet.

[JP Dogberry]

Oh dear, except File Sharing *IS* designed for legal purposes. That's the only thing I use Bittorrent for, legal releases.

[Spriggan]

I don't see what this ruling has to do with Linux, that software wasn't designed to perform illegal activity nor does open source as a whole support theft.

The ruling didn't say P2P as a concept was illegal just that the current networks were designed for illicit activities, I also don't think this will have any effect on Bit-torrent the software since it's not a centralized hub like P2P networks plus there's a huge amount of legal file distribution via Bitt-torrent which P2P networks don't have so they don't fall under Beta max.  Also I don't think Beta max makes it legal to record a show for non-personal use (ie giving it to someone else) but that TV companies never felt the need to go after such uses.

[Spriggan]

Oh dear, except File Sharing *IS* designed for legal purposes. That's the only thing I use Bittorrent for, legal releases.

File sharing is different then P2P which is what the focus of this ruling was, P2P networks and their responsibility for illegal content on their networks.

Besides Illegal Bitt-Torrent download sites are easily suable under current laws.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Almost all linux builds nowadays are distributed via bittorrent.

[Spriggan]

and, as I stated, I don't think Bitt-torrent has much to worry about thanks to Open Source.  Part of the Betamax ruling, and why P2Ps got ruled against, was that there has to be some legal use that over weighs the possible illegal use and the Court ruled that the amount of legal downloads on many P2P networks, as they're designed now, is piratical non-existent thus Groakster isn't protected by Betamax.  Bitt-torrent, on the other hand, has a huge amount of legal users and strong corporate support (like Microsoft and Blizzard) that I don't think there's anything to worry about.

[Archon]

The decision could also have an impact on any technology firm developing gadgets or devices that let people enjoy media on the move.

If strictly interpreted the ruling means that these hi-tech firms will have to try to predict the ways people can use these devices to pirate copyrighted media and install controls to stop this infringement.

The ruling could also prompt a re-drafting of copyright laws by the US Congress.

Uh Sprig, I think you are failing to look at the larger picture here. My take on this is that they are trying to make any kind of software that distributes files, and especially music, stealproof. In other words, they are going to make them all like iTunes. One of the things that is really a pain about iTunes is that a lot of the time it won't let you do what you want with your own music, due to the fact that they are guarding their music from being stolen. Besides that, not all of these companies are meant to illegally distribute music. Programs like the new Napster, and the new Kazaa are meant to legally distribute music. How they are used is another game entirely. Responsibility for that lies with the people that misuse these programs, because the companies are trying to run a legitimate business.

[Spriggan]

That BBC article isn't all that good in actually explaining the ruling, head over to news.com much better, and accurate, coverage on it.  Of course this is just my interpretation of the ruling, you could be right or we all could be wrong, one thing is for sure it'll probably be a few years until we start seeing the full out come.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

yet, Jam, you make the exact same argument for the legality of private gun ownership.

I don't know that it's really the intent. What is it largely being used for? Without looking up numbers, I'm willing to bet that over 75% of P2P file sharing is illegal file sharing. In fact, I believe that closer to 95% of p2p file sharing is illegal.

That makes a significant cost in revenue for the owners of copyright, no matter how you slice it (that takes into account the number of people who ONLY acquire it because it's free and would never touch it if it cost them anything).

A bittorrent server that hosts Linux distros, however, is hardly doing anything remotely illegal.

As much as I hate it, I have to side with the courts on this one. If 95% of the use for something is for illegal purposes, it should be shut down, or at least much better regulated.

Think about this, "Information wants to be free" lovers. If no one could make a living on producing intellectual property, the number of people who would spend most of their life working on intellectual property would not be able to do that. This means your music, your books, your comics, your movies, and even much of your software is gone. These people are trying to make a living giving you entertainment and service, and all you can do is complain when they insist that they want to be paid for it.

Now, I'm sure to be misinterpretted. Groups like the RIAA go after the PRINCIPLE of file sharing. WHich is retarded, in my opinion. THere are a vast number of legitimate reasons for efficient file sharing methods to be out there. But just letting anyone share anything at all isn't working. Instead of complaining about the people trying to protect their livlihood, perhaps you should support people who are trying to improve distribution methods to allow legitimate uses without making it so easy that most of the distribution going on is illegal.

[Master Gopher]

Even though your estimated statistics seem fairly reasonable, e, I dont think we can assume the court made the correct decision because they agree with *estimated* statistics. If those were the case, I would say, yes, it seems reasonable. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.
But it's terribly wrong when people start confusing the end with the means. Saying that file sharing, as in the process, has anything wrong with it, is obviously flawed. Technology has no morality, it is simply a tool and subservient to whatever moral judgements we want to make. If people want to do illegal things, well, shame on the people.

The thing is, people begin associaton of file sharing, or downloading mp3's, or whatever, with illegality, and become prejudiced against the technology rather than the criminal action.