rs_al

Remind me again, what is the legitimate use for an uzi? Just because there's half an amendment that says it's ok doesn't mean the issue is any different. Things are designed to commit illegal acts, and I should think if we are empowered "to murder or not to murder" than we damn well ought to be able to decide "to pirate or not to pirate".

Not to mention if you classify code as speech, then any open source peer to peer software is protected under the first amendment. Then, it shouldn't matter what the legitimate use is, or even if there is one. With any luck this will just be another nail in the coffin for closed source tools.

Mateo

Don't know, ask the NRA. That's the sort of spurious argument that people like to trot out in lieu of logic. Guns, themselves, are not the source of murder, under our system of law. Period.

If you decide to commit murder, be it with a weapon, or your bare hands, you have decided to do it, the method is irrelevant.

Or should we, by your reasoning, blame the hands that choked someone to death?

That's where the legitimate use exception to the decision comes in. If the technology has another legtimate use, it may get a pass.

But the IP protections are there to protect people's ideas, so how is it that some third party software developer can come in and dictate how and when they can assert those rights? Its not ok to sell DVD copies on Canal Street in NYC, but somehow allowing Grokster to deliver it online is?

Code is protected under free speech, only to the extent that it doesn't run afoul of some other national interest (O'Brien Standard). There is a legitimate national concern here, the protection of intellectual property, which probably trumps the free speech protection.

But you can't use free speech to induce someone to commit a crime either, and exercise of free speech rights can slide into slander or libel, so the right is not absolute.

ImAWuss

It's here to stay. Will not go away, cant go away, the end.

These p2p networks are good way to get caught anyways. I have. I got a nice letter from my ISP informing me that I was sharing copyrighted matrial. The file they mentioned wasn't even a full file either! No mention of the other 4000 files there though...

__________________
Read the TG Primer, the TGNS Primer and most importantly, the TGNS Rules | My Website!!
birdie_in_Texas:ok..i feel stupid here..what is "NS"..? Wyzcrak:Natural Selection. Don't feel at a loss for not knowing the acronym. Feel at a loss for not having experienced the game.

rs_al

Terrible, terrible example. You're confusing the issue. It's illegal to sell DVD copies yes. But it is not illegal to sell DVD-RW drives, DVD-R's, plastic DVD cases, paper to print labels on. Grokster did not pirate anything. Grokster did not sell anything illegal. Grokster merely facilitated it, just like DVD burners facilitate the copying of DVDs.

There is a special exception for guns in our constitution, but that doesn't mean it's any different morally. The constitution is a document of laws, not ethics. If there was an amendment that said "Their right to make p2p software, shall not be infringed", would you be singing a different tune? I think you would. But yet, the same rights are being trampled, the same movies and music stolen, there would just be a silly law somewhere that for whatever reason says it's ok.

RandomGuy

Can anyone give me an example of Grokster marketing their software as something with which to infringe on copyrights?

leejo

Well....not any more I'm sure.

Can anyone give me an example of having used Grokster or some other file sharing app that didn't involve downloading copyrighted material? I've used bittorrent to download a patch or mod here and there, but most of the time I'm looking for the naughty file.

rs_al

This is, in fact, what the decision hinges on. The supreme court ruled that if they were advertising that their software could be used to break the law, as you have said they did, then, and only then, were they doing something illegal- if they advertise their software can peform an illegal act then they can be held liable for users committing that act. The court did not rule that the software itself is illegal. The case has been sent back to a lower court.
I've used bit torrent numerous times.
I've never downloaded anything illegal with it. Things like free games and patches, Nasa's Worldwind, videos of games and trailers, and music.

Also, on a technical note, you can legally download copyrighted material. For example, Natural Selection is copyright Unknown Worlds Entertainment, but it is offered free for you to download via bt.

SkidMark

Thats why you should not listen to rap......

Wikkedy wik wok,
Drip drip drop.
Rap is crap,
So is hip hop.

I think thats going to be my sig now....

__________________
|CS:S Development Team|
|CS:S Announcements, Rules, and SOP's|

TheFeniX

Yes it does. There are legal reasons to own a semi-auto Uzi. Some people collect them. Some people compete with sub machine guns.

Your arguement fails because full-auto Uzis aren't something you can just pick-up legally like a pack of chewing gum. I would know from my efforts to obtain a full-auto MP5.

Uzis weren't designed to commit illegal acts. They were designed as a cheap, throw away gun that can crank out rounds fairly fast.

__________________

rs_al

You argument fails because you are nit-picking to avoid addressing the issue. There are plenty of legal firearms that don't serve any solid purpose. I mean honestly, collecting them? I can use this as an argument for the legitimacy of anything. I collect bombs. They look nice on my mantle piece.

I guess I'm missing some amazing use for guns I never thought of but it doesn't matter. I'm not actually talking about the guns. The point is this:

P2P software doesn't pirate files, people do.

CingularDuality

I'm a Life Member of the NRA and I challenge anyone to disagree with this statement!

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

TheFeniX

What issue? You made a bad parrallel between a P2P program and an undefined Uzi under the assumption that Uzis were designed for illegal activity. They, in fact, were not.

Define: solid.

If you are legally licensed to own and distribute explosives: yes you can have a bomb on your mantle.

Then why did you bring them up, while asking what legitimate use they have, then deciding to throw in a jab at the second ammendment?

You also failed to address my point that owning a full-auto uzi is restricted and aquiring the permission to get one involves a lengthy background check. Also, a semi-auto Uzi is nothing more than a large hand-gun.

Now, if some guy was handing out full-auto Uzis on the street and telling people how to knock over banks with them, I'd see the parrallel.

Agreed.

__________________

KeithMann

It seems to me that the US supreme court is handcuffed by a constitution that's badly in need of an overhaul, and a lot of bad legislation that was passed in support of lobbyists in exchange for power (in the form of votes and cash). I support the EFF and the ACLU, but I'm afraid they're fighting a losing battle. The courts simply aren't empowered to strike down what they consider to be a bad piece of legislation; they can only strike it down if it's unconstitutional. They may think "this is illegal, but it shouldn't be" but they are powerless to change the law. The checks and balances have stopped working; another branch of government is required, IMHO, to legislate the legislators...in theory, that's supposed to be the people, but that no longer works.

__________________
|TG-1stMIP|Manner
1st Mechanized Infantry Platoon (C-Team)

Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight diseases like cancer.

Rincewind

The Supreme Court ruling is not as bad for P2P as most media are making out to be (Gee, I wonder why media conglomerates are covering this decision from an extreme point of view? Could it be in their interest? Nawwww). What the majority opinion inferred from their decision is that a company is liable for infringements where the company promoted infringement as a use for their product. It is not enough for a company to show the Court that their product has legitimate uses but rather important to the Court how the company has promoted the use of their product.

What the Supreme Court found, in this particular case, is that Morpheus and Grokster were negligent in how they promoted the intended use of their application. The majority (in this case the whole Court) found that the lower courts should not ignore how the companies have promoted copyright infringement (e.g. saying, “Any song, movie, program available at the click of a mouse,” is intent to promote piracy). This is interesting because throughout this session of the Court, a lot of cases seemed to be decided on the intent of why or how something was done as opposed to black and white readings of the constitution. The Ten Commandments (where rulings went two ways; but was a definite strike against state sponsored religion), eminent domain, Grokster et. al., and others. Coupled with no formal announcement of retirement from the chief justice it will be an interesting Fall session when the High Court has another pow-wow.

What does this mean for P2P? Well, it means that if a company is using P2P as a business model, they better make damned sure they aren’t promoting (there’s that word again) copyright infringement. And they better be just as careful about it as gun companies are about not promoting their guns to gangs and murderers (to bring up previously mentioned analogies). So for now, P2P programs like bit torrent and others are safe as long as their use continues to be promoted as ‘making easier the distribution of large amounts of popular data.’ In America it just doesn’t jive with the **AA lobbyist, Congress, or the High Courts to make money by providing and promoting a means for people to distribute copyrighted material unlawfully.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

Rincewind

As soon as P2P software is necessary for the security of a free State, you will see a constitutional amendment for it.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers