Makers of File Sharing Programs can now be Sued

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Not sure how this is going to play out, but the copyright police just got the go-ahead to sic their army of lawyers on another part of the P2P chain. I'm sure this will result in the next wave of pop-punk-whatever crap to come out of hollywood to be that much more... heavily marketed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

The ol' court is really on a roll these days.
 
[quote name='David85']Well if they are downloading movies illegally shouldn't they be sued?[/QUOTE]

It's the P2P sites that can now be sued, not just the people illegally downloading movies.

Here's an example - if the RIAA wants to bully Apple's Ipod into adopting a more restrictive flavor of DRM (Digital Rights Management), they can just lauch a huge lawsuit against Apple stating that the Apple "intended" to sell DRM-less Ipods to music pirates.
 
This is bullshit. I have no problem with the companies going after the individuals downloading illegal content, but it's insane to pin this on the program writers.
 
Well, going after individuals alone won't stop it. If the companies can always do it, then there will always be plenty of people willing to take that risk.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, going after individuals alone won't stop it. If the companies can always do it, then there will always be plenty of people willing to take that risk.[/QUOTE]

Well then we should be able to sue gun manufacturers or ciggarette companies? Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we should be able to avoid the law to shut them down.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Well then we should be able to sue gun manufacturers or ciggarette companies? Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we should be able to avoid the law to shut them down.[/QUOTE]

Well yes, and we do, but not just for producing their products but for lying about the products effects.

Though, in this case, I think it's different. Almost any form of file sharing that is and can be done on things such as bearshare and kazaa are illegal. It's like gun manufacturers knowingly making a product where almost 100% of it's use knowingly went to illegal activities, they would like have legal issues to deal with.

Personally, I really have no opinion on whether this should be legal or not. On the one hand the industry does have a point, it's copyrighted material being traded without permission, but I really can't make a convincing argument for the other side. Sure, it's made it so I found out about tons of band I never would have heard of, and allowed me to try cd's before I buy them (if I like your music I buy it, unless it's just one song and then I wouldn't have bought it anyway). Even if you pulled out all the artists who didn't want ot be a part, you'd do major damage to the whole process and result in less artists (small, large whatever) participating. But those aren't legal reasons just personal ones of why I enjoy it.
 
I think the title of this thread is wrong/misleading, as the ruling isn't that file-sharing sites can be sued, but that the makers of file-sharing programs can be sued.

The first group SHOULD be sued, IMO, because they're deliberately making copywrited material available for illegal download, even though they're technically not hosting the files themselves. There's no legal reason that I can think of that people should be able to download 'Star Wars 3' or 'Batman Returns' off the net. The program makers, however, are making software with legitimate uses. If some people misuse the software, well, that's life. No matter what you make, SOMEBODY is going to figure out a way to misuse it.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I think the title of this thread is wrong/misleading, as the ruling isn't that file-sharing sites can be sued, but that the makers of file-sharing programs can be sued.

The first group SHOULD be sued, IMO, because they're deliberately making copywrited material available for illegal download, even though they're technically not hosting the files themselves. There's no legal reason that I can think of that people should be able to download 'Star Wars 3' or 'Batman Returns' off the net. The program makers, however, are making software with legitimate uses. If some people misuse the software, well, that's life. No matter what you make, SOMEBODY is going to figure out a way to misuse it.[/QUOTE]

But what about when the primary, and only real reason, people use it is for illegal uses?
 
If we were discussing a theoretical product which only had illegal applications, then MAYBE I would agree that it should be illegal. Possibly. However, we're discussing P2P file sharing programs which have many entirely legal uses, so that topic isn't particularly relevant.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I think the title of this thread is wrong/misleading, as the ruling isn't that file-sharing sites can be sued, but that the makers of file-sharing programs can be sued.[/QUOTE]

Good point - edited for clarity.
 
I have a serious question for anyone to answer. Have you EVER used a file sharing program for a legal use? Do you use a P2P system for file downloads of shareware or freeware? Of course not. You're going to be able to get those programs from sites like download.com tucows.com or any other number of distribution sites with incredible bandwidth and no threats of spyware or adware.

Any business, research consortium, educational organization or medical facility is going to be connected to whatever it is they need to be connected to without P2P software EVER being necessary. P2P software is the computer equivilent of a Saturday Night Special or sawed off shotgun. You can say that some people like to shoot a snub nosed pistol or sawed off shotgun with an effective range of 10 feet..... but no one really uses them for target practice. Their best practical use is criminal.

P2P is no different, proponents of it are really just kidding themselves that it's a legitimate software with broad legal usage. At best it's a way to collect legacy software, audio tracks from out of print LP's, cassettes or CD's, MAME games that aren't produced for commercial sale and of course..... porn. All of which fall into the gray copyright area. At worst a maker working to make the transfer of 3 GB files from 500 users as fast as possible knows damn skippy that there's only one kind of file that size that users want rapid access to and it sure as hell is not legal.
 
I can honestly say, yes, I have used P2P programs (specifically BitTorrent) for legitimate purposes, specifically downloading publicly available demos of games. I COULD go to a 'legitimate' site for download, but they usually seem to have slower downloads than what I get from BitTorrent. Considering the way that BitTorrent works, that means that there are a lot of other people out there that are also using the program/protocol for legitimate purposes.
 
I'm going to have to agree with the whole "bullshit!" on the ruling. It makes about as much sense as them ruling against Sony for making DVD burners just because a few people burned movies or games with the DVD burner.
 
There is one upside if this comes into fruition - any new P2P proggies will become open source - without names. It's just a stumbling block in the p2p arms race for the pirates. It's time to evolve again.
 
Well it says they can be sued only if they encourage illegal file swaping. It will be interesting to see if in future cases a file swaping service intended for legal exchanges (with minor piracy protections) will be sucessfuly sued.

Personally I still think it's sad that the recording industry still refuses to admit how much of the current record sales slump is due to its practices and the nessasary time required in a pop music cycle.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I have a serious question for anyone to answer. Have you EVER used a file sharing program for a legal use? Do you use a P2P system for file downloads of shareware or freeware? Of course not. [/QUOTE]

Have you ever used a VCR's record ability/TIVO for legal use? Do you use a VCR/TIVO to tape baseball games or your favorite TV sitcoms to watch later?

Oh, the film industry was just devasted by the VCR, wasn't it?

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

- Jack Valenti
Click to expand...

You have to protect technological innovation against the forces that would stifle it for their own continued 100+ year fiefdom of copyrighted works that should have entered public domain generations ago.

America used to be about leading the pack, giving the consumer what they want (and deserve), figuring out new ways to make business models work with the latest technology.

This decision has a chilling effect on professional technological innovation (and information sharing in general), and does nothing to combat the hyped-up "problem" of music piracy (it's just going to go more underground, think about how popular a virtuously anonymous version of bittorrent will be)
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Personally I still think it's sad that the recording industry still refuses to admit how much of the current record sales slump is due to its practices and the nessasary time required in a pop music cycle.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, because on the news they had a bunch of fat rednecks with guitars outside the supreme court complaining about how downloading has hurt their livelyhood (they were holding protest signs proclaiming "Feed an Artist" and "This song ain't free")

What a bunch of fools, at least once this passes they'll realize that noone liked their crappy music anyway, it's only the Britney Spears and Eminems that will get a few million richer as a result. Why must the poor and stupid be so easy to manipulate...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I have a serious question for anyone to answer. Have you EVER used a file sharing program for a legal use? Do you use a P2P system for file downloads of shareware or freeware? [/QUOTE]
Yes, I use bittorrent for almost everything. Mods, patches, updates, etc.

It's the best thing since sliced bread. You can even resume an incomplete download.
 
Most of the bigger linux distros are bittorrents now, mandrake for example. I realy think that this is just going to hinder progress. P2P programs are a godsend to indpendant developers/artists because it is a VERY cost effective way to distribute large amounts of data. For example, lets say I was an independant film maker and I wanted people to see the trailer for the film I'm working on. I could pay for hosting with high bandwidth or I could make a torrent and use my home dsl/cable connection. Now I realize people could go a step further and put my whole film on a torrent, but getting rid of the application won't help. Why? The people who download movies are the same people who buy bootlegs from the flea market.
 
[quote name='peteloaf']Most of the bigger linux distros are bittorrents now, mandrake for example. I realy think that this is just going to hinder progress. P2P programs are a godsend to indpendant developers/artists because it is a VERY cost effective way to distribute large amounts of data. For example, lets say I was an independant film maker and I wanted people to see the trailer for the film I'm working on. I could pay for hosting with high bandwidth or I could make a torrent and use my home dsl/cable connection. Now I realize people could go a step further and put my whole film on a torrent, but getting rid of the application won't help. Why? The people who download movies are the same people who buy bootlegs from the flea market.[/QUOTE]

Well a friend of mine buys nothing legit anymore (besides some pc software). He either rents dvd's and burns them, or downloads them online, and he downloads all his music online (everything through bearshare). He used to buy stuff, he's never bought a bootleg (outside of indian dvd's, which he has no choice) but now he only downloads the stuff cause it's free. He thinks it's stupid that I actually buy official versions cause I like the packaging.
 
Well if it weren't for the program makers of the programs such as limewire, bearshare, etc., then people wouldn't have a way to DL files.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] P2P is no different, proponents of it are really just kidding themselves that it's a legitimate software with broad legal usage.[/QUOTE]

That's funny since Microsoft is now developing their own P2P app called Avalanche. Why would a multi-billion dollar company spend time and money to create a P2P application when there are supposedly no legitimate, legal uses?

http://www.theregister.com/2005/06/16/filesharing_microsoft/

P2P could benefit corporations with software deployment, internal searches, etc. There are legitimate uses for this software, despite what the RIAA/MPAA may want you to think.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']That's funny since Microsoft is now developing their own P2P app called Avalanche. Why would a multi-billion dollar company spend time and money to create a P2P application when there are supposedly no legitimate, legal uses?

http://www.theregister.com/2005/06/16/filesharing_microsoft/

P2P could benefit corporations with software deployment, internal searches, etc. There are legitimate uses for this software, despite what the RIAA/MPAA may want you to think.[/QUOTE]

Because they see potential for legitimate use, not that the current use isn't illegal.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why must the poor and stupid be so easy to manipulate...[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt capitalism would work very well without them.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Well it says they can be sued only if they encourage illegal file swaping. It will be interesting to see if in future cases a file swaping service intended for legal exchanges (with minor piracy protections) will be sucessfuly sued.

Personally I still think it's sad that the recording industry still refuses to admit how much of the current record sales slump is due to its practices and the nessasary time required in a pop music cycle.[/QUOTE]

What you say in your first paragraph leads me to argue that I think it would be hard for the RIAA or any other copyright group to conclusively prove that said P2P service was meant with the original purpose of illegal filesharing.
Regardless I think P2P is great for legit reasons, just for an artist putting a good song out there and if people seem to be interested they can just drop the websites name in the song and they can entirely avoid the music machine that is so greedy, stealing all YOUR money for distribution, publicity, etc. but especially distribution i.e. paying $ for big business contacts.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']What you say in your first paragraph leads me to argue that I think it would be hard for the RIAA or any other copyright group to conclusively prove that said P2P service was meant with the original purpose of illegal filesharing.
Regardless I think P2P is great for legit reasons, just for an artist putting a good song out there and if people seem to be interested they can just drop the websites name in the song and they can entirely avoid the music machine that is so greedy, stealing all YOUR money for distribution, publicity, etc. but especially distribution i.e. paying $ for big business contacts.[/QUOTE]

I'm simply curious how encourage will be interpreted. Let's say for example I create a network designed to allow the swap of music from unsigned bands, I'm sure after a while unless I tightly monitor file uploads illegal tracks will be traded. Now would I have encouraged this activity simply by creating a means to trade files?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I'm simply curious how encourage will be interpreted. Let's say for example I create a network designed to allow the swap of music from unsigned bands, I'm sure after a while unless I tightly monitor file uploads illegal tracks will be traded. Now would I have encouraged this activity simply by creating a means to trade files?[/QUOTE]

Exactly, I see this decision as a way for the RIAA to force restrictive DRM on everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top