Your supreme courts really do suck

[House of Mustard]

Yes Ent, it has both meanings, though the "a political body who has no monarch" usage is rarely used, since it's really vague.

There are, however, two major schools of thought when it comes to republics.  The first -- what it appears SE was alluding to -- is where we elect representatives we trust, and allow them to govern in the way they see fit.  

The second -- much closer to true democracy -- is that we elect representatives who will listen to the voice of the people on every issue, and vote accordingly.  (Oddly enough, these types of politicians are often ridiculed in America as being poll-watchers.  They're accused of having no backbone not standing for any of their own beliefs.)

Generally, if someone makes the argument that "America is a republic, not a democracy", they're referring to the first version of a republic.

[Archon]

The first -- what it appears SE was alluding to -- is where we elect representatives we trust

Trust? Are you joking?

[Skar]

There are already laws in place that make stealing music, making copies for your friends etc... illegal.  They should be prosecuting the people that steal the music under the existing law.  I know that it is insanely difficult to find the people who are stealing the music and then prove that they are doing so but making the maker of the hammer responsible for the use the buyer of the hammer puts it to is insane. (statistical usages aside the principal is the same and don't think this ruling won't be used by anyone who thinks they can make a fast buck by interpreting it in a million different ways not intended by the supreme court)  I mean honestly, they just made photocopier manufacturers liable for any illegal copying done on their machines. They made the makers of CD and DVD burners liable for the same.  For that matter they opened up the makers of thumbdrives, MP3 players, and harddrives to the same thing.

Jam can add me to the list of people who believe that the illegal copying and distribution of music is immoral.  That's not to say that I haven't done it, but I know it's wrong.  

As for the stifling of IP creators I would venture to say that the courts have just stifled, for the life of their ruling, the creation of filesharing software.  Information exchange, the greatest thing to happen to every area of human endeavor ever, has just been dealt a mortal blow.  Not because the courts have forbidden even legitimate filesharing but because they have made the creation of filesharing software legally dangerous.  If "they" can't create filesharing software without risk of being sued over the myriad misuses that the public will find for that software, "they" won't create it.  We will never move beyond the current state of the art in filesharing tech because of this decision.  That's not to say that the tech will not move forward, it will, but not in the U.S.  Congratulations big business and the courts, you have successfully stalled the need to adapt and put our country behind the rest of the world.  

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

well, the problem with slippery slope arguments (this happened, so this is the next thing that will surely happen) is that they are rarely if ever right.

I'll have to take Skar's response as exaggeration, because his conclusion is ridiculous.

Look, this is from the opinion itself: "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."  (edit: the emphasis is mine)

You have to demonstrate intent for it to be illegal. YEs, both sides will try to exploit that decision. They have not said anything at all about Scanners, copiers, or DVD burners. Because you can't distribute a CD you've made yourself without a burner.  and all these companies that wanted this ruling? They distribute CDs. So even if you're pessimistic, you have to realize that the application you say is sure to follow could never happen.

[Entsuropi]

HoM - I was curious, since the UK tends to be described as a 'constitutional monarchy' (wierd since we have no constitution) and yet it fits into the 'republic' name just as well.

[Skar]

Which conclusion?  I made several.

Your quote from the ruling itself just makes the whole thing worse.  How in the world are you supposed to prove someone's intent?  It's either unenforceable because you can't prove what someone was or was not thinking or it is enforceable because we now have the power to claim that we know what someone was thinking and prosecute them for it.  Welcome to the era of thought police.

There is no slippery slope argument here.  We've already arrived at the bottom.  There is no difference between proving the makers of software (apparently what is meant by the word device) "intended" their users to infringe copyright and proving the makers of CD burners and all the other "devices" that make copies of digital data "intended" their users to infringe copyright.  So, while they may not have mentioned other devices the ruling is still, obviously, applicable to them.

And how about the fact that innovators in the field of filesharing now have to worry about being sued for what the users of their software do, as long as the corporate lawyers of the music industry or their competitors can somehow show what they were thinking?  They've stifled innovation in that field. And it's an important one.

I predict that them music and movie industries will start marketing their own file-sharing software and stifle all competition using this ruling.

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

No, we're hardly at the bottom. You will not see suits against burner manufacturers. Or else the common pencil will be sued already.

You ask the question about how we can prove someone's intent, does that mean you have a problem with the differences between manslaughter and murder? how about self-defense and murder? the ONLY difference in those is the killer's intent. They don't have to prove it finally, they only have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, which is doable and is done in courtrooms across the country every single day.

I'm sure you'll see the companies coming out with file sharing systems. It's what I've been hoping they'll do for ages and ages. But I don't think that these companies have the acumen to hold all of the filesharing market. They'll eventually turn to third party vendors, like iTunes or Napster, so they can make a bottom line. Just like they do for physical distribution. It's not so easy to add a whole new branch to your business. Marvel tried self-distribution of their comics when they had tons of money to back it up. They declared Chapter 11 because of it. Not everyone WANTS to distribute their own stuff. but if they do, who cares? It's available legally, using the technology you think will be so oppressed. If they are developing applications for this technology, you can be certain that they will be pushing the tech.

So which is it? Is the US going to be left in the dark ages over one ruling? or are these companies going to control the entire future?

oh, and yes, there's a HUGE divide between filesharing systems set up to distribute copyrighted info illegally and the simple manufacture of goods. Ignoring how unreasonable I think your vision of the natural consequences of this ruling are, no one will sue CD burner manufacturers. Because everyone NEEDS them. Even these huge businesses with all the money. Or is every book publisher on the planet going to start a copying machine and printer manufacturing division? and every movie studio is going to build a factory to manufacture their tapes and press their CDs? And every software developer is going to reinvent the CD/DVD burner so they can pass copies of their data to the other developers on the team? I suppose that the writer's union will lobby to make sure pens, paper, and pencils are illegal to make except for those who actually write with them?

[Skar]

No, we're hardly at the bottom. You will not see suits against burner manufacturers. Or else the common pencil will be sued already.

No, they would not have been sued because up till now the manufacturers of pencils could not be held responsible for what the consumer did with their product.  That's what has changed.

Upon reflection I'm hard pressed to come up with the reason why intent in manslaughter vs murder cases is different than it would be used here so maybe I need to reconsider.  Intent is difficult to prove but it all relates back to actions, what actions did the defendant take that leads us to believe his intent was to facilitate copyright infringement?  This will tend to force filesharing software to distinguish between legally shared stuff and non but I suppose that's the intent eh?  

* Skar frowns and scratches for fleas

no one will sue CD burner manufacturers. Because everyone NEEDS them.

But this is still a problem.  You should have been able to say "no one will sue CD burner manufacturers because that's not what the law allows."  But you can't now because it does.

Eh, aside from that, I back off.  If the opinion as a whole is consistent with the bit you quoted then the article linked was highly misleading.

[GorgontWCow]

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 associat[ing]...

..the technology with the crime.  It's the type of idea that people associate, say, people from the middle-east with terrorists.  It happens.  Does that make all middle-easterners terrorists?  No.  Some are.  Are all file-sharing systems made to mass distribute stolen art?  No.  Some are.  And that is associating the morals of a person onto a technology or, in this case, a people.

However, I do think that illegal file-sharing is far too easy.  There will always be illegal file-sharing as long as there is the technology to do so, but it is far too easy to achieve in today's age.  Something should be done to shut down or reform file-sharing programs that mass distribute illegal material.  The fact is whether or not the programs were designed for the purpose of illegal transfer, they are being used for that purpose and not doing anything about it.  The creators are being apathetic and they need to care about what their programs are being used for.

JP, add me to your list, then take just about every person who makes money in media and add them to your list.  If a person makes their living off the media and believes file-sharing is moral, they obviously don't understand the system.

How many people do you know that think stealing is immoral?  Add every person that you know that thinks that stealing is immoral to your list, because illegal file-sharing is stealing.  It is no less stealing to take the music an artist made without paying than if I took a chair a carpenter built without paying.

There's always going to be borrowing and burning of movies, CDs, videogames, books, etc., but that is hardly of significant impact to the the buisinesses that are effected, if anything, it is free advertisement.  I mean, if somebody you know gives you a CD that you like from a band you've never heard of, you're more likely to buy a CD by or see a concert of the band in the future, just like if I borrow a book and like it, I'm more likely to read books by that author in the future.

If burning a CD that your friend had was as immoral as file sharing, by the way, then why do we have libraries, or video rental stores?  It is the same idea--after you borrow a book you don't need to buy it anymore, you already read it, same goes for the movie.  The same exact thing happens when you burn a CD.  The problem lies when millions of people are copying millions of files at an extreme pace--when they steal more than they buy or close to that.  So long as more music is being bought than is being stolen, it is more of an advertisement than a theft, just like all advertisements cost money, it costs them money when you burn their CD, but not much.

However, mass distribution of files without paying the creator(s) DOES harm the people who make the product financially.  Unlike borrowing and copying from a friend, which does not hurt the industry and is likely to bring in more support in the future, mass distribution harms the industry and is likely to stop production in the future because of lack of funds.

And Ent, I think the UK is a republic because, if I am not mistakenm, the monarchy is just a figurehead that parliment never really felt the need to get rid of.  Because parliment is the real law-making body in England, it is a republic.  I think.

[JP Dogberry]

Yes it *IS* different, else I wouldn't see a whole load of people who feel that burning a CD is fine but see stealing as wrong.

On that subject, anyone who has ever copied a CD or such isn't allowed on my list. Actions speak louder than words.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Yeah, but just because somebody does something doesn't mean they think it is moral.  People lie all the time, does that make it right?  No.  Even the people lying would most likely tell you it is not the right thing to do.  Doing something isn't the same as believing it is moral.

And I thought the list was for people who thought that illegal file-transfer was wrong, which is, as you just admitted, different than burning a CD.

[JP Dogberry]

Do you just not understand "Actions speak louder than words"? I don't care what a person pays lip service to - if they do something, they are expressing in the strongest way possible they are ok with it.

It's like, I can say I don't agree with killing people and then stab you - does that mean I'm not a murderer?

[Archon]

No, but it could mean that you don't believe that killing is moral.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Do you just not understand "doing something does not mean you think it is moral."

Let me explain it to you simply:

There are people that have to steal to eat, and do so all over the world.  These people are forced to steal.  They understand and believe that stealing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

The action is stealing.  The person does this action.  They believe it is wrong.  Just because the person steals, you assume they think stealing is okay.  They are still a theif, and they still committed a crime, but they understand that what they are doing is wrong.

A person can recognize that something is bad and still do it, just because you do something does not mean you think it is the right thing to do.  People do it everyday.  That is why people feel guilt.  If people only did what they thought was right, and therefore every action they took they agreed with, people would not feel guilt, because they would think that everything they did was morally correct and not worthy of remorse.

Do you get it now, or do I need to draw a picture?  I'll do it, I swear.

[Archon]

If people only did what they thought was right, and therefore every action they took they agreed with, people would not feel guilt,

Not to mention hypocrites. If everyone did only what they thought was right, hypocrisy would be a theoretical term.