Grokster Lost! - Page 3

rs_al · 06-28-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

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

We read amendments backwards now? Not that the second amendment has a lot to do with this, but let's start from the beginning, k?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now it's been a while since King Henry walked into my apartment and demanded I give him some booze money, but really why can't p2p be "necessary for the security of a free state"? It allows people to express themselves, to transmit knowledge and information that they would otherwise have no way to convey over large distances to massive audiences. They can't just throw up a web page, it'd be overloaded in minutes. P2P is the answer. It is necessary for the freedom of an informed state.

Imagine, if you will, that Canada invades. We need to get information to the people about the invasion. Video, audio, maybe even database information that needs to be saved before it is lost. As the invaders slice pipelines and raze data warehouses, they'll never be able to keep up with the bits flowing around on a decentralized peer to peer network. The peer to peer software could be vital to save our heritage. So we'd have the old men on their front porches with shotguns holding off the canadians, while the hackers of the world unite to back up all the incredibly important slashdot slang entries on wikipedia.

In the future, information will be a powerful asset (it already is). We'll want people to be able to control the flow of it themselves. Perhaps the most frequently invoked pro-firearm argument is that it's in the constitution. The circumstances at that time made it obvious it was needed. Now, the circumstances are less obvious, and there's more resistance. Resistance against P2P will only increase in the future. If it is not defended now, it will never get rooted in like the right to bear arms, and it will be killed off before it has a chance to grow.

**leejo** · 06-28-2005, 03:09 PM

Dude you make some strange arguments. King Henry? We should turn property rights on their heads just in case Canada invades?

Back here on planet earth, there is a notion in western civilization that there is a free exchange of ideas, and there is personal property, and there is reward for investment. All of these hinge upon one another and deliver technological and process revolutions that drive our society, economy, and military.

P2P poses a much greater threat by allowing large numbers of people, domestic and foreign, to steal from US investors. There may be a hypothetical need to prevent Canada from rising up and overcoming, or to alert people on the internet that the martians have arrived, but....mmmm yeah.

rs_al · 06-28-2005, 03:26 PM

Ok. Thanks for your curteous reply.

Here on earth, people have this thing called "right to not be dead". Guns infringe on this right. Firearms pose a much greater threat by allowing large numbers of people to become not alive. People have this personal property, called "blood". Guns permit the theft and loss of that property.

If you are going to have a belief, apply it universally, don't pick and choose. You again are arguing that people have the ethical and moral power to decide life and death for another human, but lack the moral integrity to decide whether or not they should download the latest episode of The Apprentice.

Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.
Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.
Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.

Got it?

**leejo** · 06-28-2005, 03:36 PM

Charming!

Here's the deal. When you live in the United States, and you have a legal opinion and the US Supreme Court has a different legal opinion, your opinion is worth about the same as the first semester of college: zip.

Also, when you live in the United States, there is a BIG difference between rights like...oh say the right to keep and bear arms...that the Constitution directly and specifically addresses, and rights like using grokster to download and share files that may or may not be legal, about which the Constitution is silent.

You may not like guns and you may like grokster, but clearly the US Supreme Court didn't care about your opinion and, now that they've spoken, neither should anyone else.

Don't like it? Well, there's a process for gradually changing the makeup of that Court. Vote, vote, vote, and eventually the pendulum will swing in the other direction.

Quote:

You again are arguing that people have the ethical and moral power to decide life and death for another human, but lack the moral integrity to decide whether or not they should download the latest episode of The Apprentice.

I am making no such argument. Don't put words in my mouth.

**Wyzcrak** · 06-28-2005, 03:38 PM

Speaking of the first semester of college, I'd appreciate it if you two wouldn't spiral into a sarcastic spasm of disrespectful back-and-forth.

**leejo** · 06-28-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Speaking of the first semester of college, I'd appreciate it if you two wouldn't spiral into a sarcastic spasm of disrespectful back-and-forth.

I'd appreciate it if you'd pull my finger, but that probably won't happen either.

**Wyzcrak** · 06-28-2005, 03:53 PM

It might if we had a rule about pulling fingers.

Or maybe it wouldn't. :/

Mateo · 06-28-2005, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Here on earth, people have this thing called "right to not be dead".

There is no such right on the books. And the Declaration is not law, BTW. There are laws designed to penalize the taking of a life, but that's not the same as a "right not to be dead."

The right to life is a more, stretching back to the earliest of western political philosophy, that a man has natural rights to decide what happens to his person and property. Neither of those rights are absolute.

Quote:

Guns infringe on this right. Firearms pose a much greater threat by allowing large numbers of people to become not alive. People have this personal property, called "blood". Guns permit the theft and loss of that property.

Bullhocky. Like I said in an earlier post, we penalize individual actions, not the instrument of those actions.

Let's say I have a pair of hands.

They are tools for good, or evil, depending upon application. I can farm with my hands, and some tools, and that's good. Or, I can beat or strangle someone to death with them.

Now, suppose I do commit a murder with my bare hands. Who is at fault? My hands, or me, for deciding to kill? Which is better, from a societal perspective?

Clearly, we want to punish the actual wrongdoer, not the instrument they use.

Quote:

If you are going to have a belief, apply it universally, don't pick and choose. You again are arguing that people have the ethical and moral power to decide life and death for another human, but lack the moral integrity to decide whether or not they should download the latest episode of The Apprentice.

Pirating someones thoughts (their work product, be it software, a TV, show, a moive, whatever) is not the same as taking someone's life. That sort of histrionics just makes logical people laugh.

We put a value on someone's ideas, which is bolstered by the market, and IP protection. The system works only if someone is able to profit from those ideas without someone copying it, or misappropriating it, and beating them to market.

Most people do not have the MORAL judgement to take anothers life. Taking life is an amoral act, by definition, unless it is in self defense. And most homicides are heat of the moment (rage, guilt, etc.), so aren't decisions per se. They aren't thinking "should I take that person's life" and weigh moral obligations.

IP theft is not the same. The scale is different. I take a life, I cannot replace what that person might have contributed to society

I take a file, and it seems like it's no harm, no foul. The IP holder can always make more, right?

Only, the IP holder had a right to be compensated for their idea, and they lost out on that right because you decided to download it.

Quote:

Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.
Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.
Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way.

Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.

IF you promote it as a source pirated material.

**Rincewind** · 06-28-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

We read amendments backwards now? Not that the second amendment has a lot to do with this, but let's start from the beginning, k?

Not reading amendments backwards, tyvm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Now it's been a while since King Henry walked into my apartment and demanded I give him some booze money

What??

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

but really why can't p2p be "necessary for the security of a free state"?

Because it isn't. And in all probability, it never will be. Amendments to 'Teh Constitution (sic)' were not and will not be added because of "could-be's" and "in-the-future's," sorry. Besides, dissemination of information is covered in the first amendment. As it stands, we do not need to protect our heritage by allowing companies to profit from the trade of copyrighted materials. And to be perfectly clear, the Supreme Court ruled that companies should not profit by promoting illegal activity and told the lower courts that they should consider this. The Courts would be all over any other type of comany that promoted (however subvertly) their products as a means to cary out a crime. Companies get sued plenty for this type of behavior. Grok and Morph should not be granted special protections from liabilty because what they are doing is no different. You really can't argue with a 7-0 decision to do so is laughable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

It allows people to express themselves, to transmit knowledge and information that they would otherwise have no way to convey over large distances to massive audiences. They can't just throw up a web page, it'd be overloaded in minutes. P2P is the answer. It is necessary for the freedom of an informed state.

Since you're obviously not defending a status quo here the proof of this lies solely in you hands; from which, no proof has fallen. As for being “necessary for the freedom of an informed state,” I don’t think so. This statement is patently false. The protections granted under the first amendment are necessary, not software from companies that promote copyright infringement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Imagine, if you will, that Canada invades. We need to get information to the people about the invasion.[...]

What?? I know people in the US of A are pretty much inside a media cocoon, but, really.

Also, I did not post here to address the Second Amendment, so I wont. I was merely pointing out how silly it was that you thought P2P should be the equivalent of a second amendment protection. Should P2P fall under the first amendment? Maybe, if it’s not used to disseminate copyrighted materials. But should P2P be viewed as the equivalent of the second amendment (as a means to secure a State); I don’t think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Resistance against P2P will only increase in the future. If it is not defended now, it will never get rooted in like the right to bear arms, and it will be killed off before it has a chance to grow.

While I’m not going to address this quote directly it illustrates to me that your arguments are based on the assumption that the Supreme Court ruled against P2P protocol in general. This is not the case. The Supreme Court did not legislate or rules against the right to make any sort of software. I refer you to my original post. They merely said the lower courts need to take a closer look at the business model that these companies used to make money. E.g. they should not be allowed to make money by promoting their software as a means to get copyright protected material. P2P in general is not at all threatened by this decision (even in the cases you've dreamed up for us)--P2P when used to distribute copyright protected data is.

**Rincewind** · 06-28-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Here's the deal. When you live in the United States, and you have a legal opinion and the US Supreme Court has a different legal opinion, your opinion is worth about the same as the first semester of college: zip.

Not necessarily true. Your legal opinion wont win any court cases untill you get the supreme court to rule in your favor trough a long process of appeals and then a 30 minute face-to-face meeting.

**leejo** · 06-28-2005, 05:09 PM

Well ok.

Don't get me wrong: I happen to disagree with the US Supreme Court fairly routinely. I'm just saying that when I have an opinion, no-one really cares (nor should they). When the US Supreme Court has an opinion, it's the law of the land.

No matter: certain topics manage to show up on that docket time and again. I don't think we've heard the last of P2P but woe be to a company who breathes a word about movies or mp3s in their marketing.

Much better off to partner with big media: the manner and method they use to distribute movies and songs, as well as the way people like to watch movies and buy songs, is changing and P2P is much closer to the paradigm they'll settle on than the current one, I bet.

rs_al · 06-28-2005, 08:16 PM

Ok, firstly.

I apoologize if I seemed overly sarcastic. I thought I left plenty of hints ("Teh", King Henry, Canada, etc), but I guess they were all taken at face value.

Secondly, please read the article.

EDIT: There is no article! No wonder no one knows what's going on, I thought there was a link in the thread starter. Now I must double apologize for my secret insider knowledge. Here's a key quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge Souter

"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 by third parties,"

Misinformation will be king. Even the article I pulled the quote from reads "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that software companies can be held liable for copyright infringement when individuals use their technology to download songs and movies illegally.", which is not what the ruling was. Misinformation will be king as the MPAA and RIAA try to spin this into a condemnation of P2P, but remember it is the business practice that the judges ruled against, not the software or the technology.

I have said nothing to contest their decision, which was regarding business and marketing practice, not software function. So they have not ruled that P2P is in any way illegal. They have ruled that encouraging users to use it to illegal ends is illegal. But it's important to maintain the seperating between the software - which is legal - and the business practice.

Quote:

Since you're obviously not defending a status quo here the proof of this lies solely in you hands; from which, no proof has fallen. As for being “necessary for the freedom of an informed state,” I don’t think so. This statement is patently false. The protections granted under the first amendment are necessary, not software from companies that promote copyright infringement.

There's a difference between "False" and "not what you think". This statement might be "not what you think", but it is not necessarily false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Bullhocky. Like I said in an earlier post, we penalize individual actions, not the instrument of those actions.

Let's say I have a pair of hands.

They are tools for good, or evil, depending upon application. I can farm with my hands, and some tools, and that's good. Or, I can beat or strangle someone to death with them.

Now, suppose I do commit a murder with my bare hands. Who is at fault? My hands, or me, for deciding to kill? Which is better, from a societal perspective?

Clearly, we want to punish the actual wrongdoer, not the instrument they use.

This was exactly my point- I was using leejo's argument of "p2p can steal, therefore it is wrong" in a more ridiculous situation. I am in complete agreeance with you here.

**leejo** · 06-28-2005, 10:46 PM

I never said p2p can steal therefore it is wrong, did I? I just think it's foolish to suppose that these companies should be given a blank check by the society or government. Is there a market for p2p file sharing? Sure. Is there a much bigger market for illegal p2p file sharing? Yes.

With any other sort of business this forum's majority would be calling foul, claiming that corporate execs will bend the rules to the verge of illegal behavior (or beyond) to increase profits.

But apparently in this world view if a company happens to make and market p2p file sharing, they should get a free pass: movie and music companies should just hand them their property and suck up "innovation's" hit to their bottom line - hits that wind up putting secretaries and warehouse workers, ordinary people, out of jobs.

I like p2p file sharing, and personally don't mind if a technological shift displaces the workforce. That's the way thing go. But that doesn't mean that I think there's anything noble or legal about using bittorrent to download Star Wars or whatever. The Supreme Court members aren't fools and to date these file sharers have fancied themsleves modern-day Robin-Hoods bringing social justice one stolen video game at a time. Is anyone honestly surprised that the Supreme Court determined that they can be sued?

**Rincewind** · 06-29-2005, 01:15 AM

Quote:

"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 by third parties,"

So, what, are you arguing this opinion is wrong or right? If it's wrong why? Do you think the opinion is wrong because you dowload protected materials? I would really like to know; at least get out and say whether or not you do so we can see where your coming from on this.

There are some key words here that protect P2P technology like bit torrent:

*object of promoting
*clear expression
*other affirmative steps

None of which bittorent (among others) is doing.

Once again, if your business model isn't "use our software to get copyrighted MP3's, movies, PDF's, appz, warez, and gamez" then your a-okay. I would like clear answer on whether or not your arguing that companies who do this should be protected by the constitution. Your postings have left it unclear to me if this is truly what you think.

So my original opinions are unchanged. P2P is not in danger of becoming a rogue technology. P2P is okay in the courts eyes. If you distribute a p2p app with the intention "hey, use my app and use it for d/l'ing warez" then your liable for the people who use your application to do so. Big deal.

This was purposefully a very narrow ruling from the Court. It is not a broad attack on P2P technology as the OP seems to have thought.

Here are some analogies:

Sudafed promoting their drug as an ingredient for methamphetamine. And then asking for protection under the constitution when they start getting sued.

Gun manufacturers putting adds out that promote a new gun to use in gang violence or murder where fingerprints don't stick. Or has no serial numbers. Or has a special barrel to thwart bullet traces. And then asking for protection under the constitution when the law suits roll in.

How about infringement? Xerox touting their newest machines ability to put out 20 Ben Franklins every 3 seconds. Or how about copying an entire calculus text book in a half hour. Or maybe 40 pages of sheet music a minute. And then asking for protection under the constitution when they get their butts sued.

You get what I'm saying? I think P2P is just fine when it's use is promoted for staying within the law.

**CingularDuality** · 06-29-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

GAh!!!!!11!!!

No. No. No!

The Constitution is what it is. It can be amended, but it's intentionally difficult to do so. Our federal court system is very empowered when it comes to striking down bad legislation! Perhaps even too empowered...

I see what you're saying, but the answer is not another branch of government. The answer is that the American people need to stop being such apathetic sheep. They need to educate themselves on the issues and vote! Unfortunately they're too busy watching American Idol (or, to be fair, playing BF2)...

06-28-2005, 03:09 PM	#32 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Grokster Lost! Dude you make some strange arguments. King Henry? We should turn property rights on their heads just in case Canada invades? Back here on planet earth, there is a notion in western civilization that there is a free exchange of ideas, and there is personal property, and there is reward for investment. All of these hinge upon one another and deliver technological and process revolutions that drive our society, economy, and military. P2P poses a much greater threat by allowing large numbers of people, domestic and foreign, to steal from US investors. There may be a hypothetical need to prevent Canada from rising up and overcoming, or to alert people on the internet that the martians have arrived, but....mmmm yeah.

06-28-2005, 03:26 PM	#33 (permalink)
rs_al Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 499	Re: Grokster Lost! Ok. Thanks for your curteous reply. Here on earth, people have this thing called "right to not be dead". Guns infringe on this right. Firearms pose a much greater threat by allowing large numbers of people to become not alive. People have this personal property, called "blood". Guns permit the theft and loss of that property. If you are going to have a belief, apply it universally, don't pick and choose. You again are arguing that people have the ethical and moral power to decide life and death for another human, but lack the moral integrity to decide whether or not they should download the latest episode of The Apprentice. Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way. Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way. Peer to peer does not infringe on property rights in any way. Got it?

06-28-2005, 03:38 PM	#35 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Grokster Lost! Speaking of the first semester of college, I'd appreciate it if you two wouldn't spiral into a sarcastic spasm of disrespectful back-and-forth. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

06-28-2005, 03:53 PM	#37 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: Grokster Lost! It might if we had a rule about pulling fingers. Or maybe it wouldn't. :/ __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

06-28-2005, 05:09 PM	#41 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Grokster Lost! Well ok. Don't get me wrong: I happen to disagree with the US Supreme Court fairly routinely. I'm just saying that when I have an opinion, no-one really cares (nor should they). When the US Supreme Court has an opinion, it's the law of the land. No matter: certain topics manage to show up on that docket time and again. I don't think we've heard the last of P2P but woe be to a company who breathes a word about movies or mp3s in their marketing. Much better off to partner with big media: the manner and method they use to distribute movies and songs, as well as the way people like to watch movies and buy songs, is changing and P2P is much closer to the paradigm they'll settle on than the current one, I bet.

06-28-2005, 10:46 PM	#43 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Grokster Lost! I never said p2p can steal therefore it is wrong, did I? I just think it's foolish to suppose that these companies should be given a blank check by the society or government. Is there a market for p2p file sharing? Sure. Is there a much bigger market for illegal p2p file sharing? Yes. With any other sort of business this forum's majority would be calling foul, claiming that corporate execs will bend the rules to the verge of illegal behavior (or beyond) to increase profits. But apparently in this world view if a company happens to make and market p2p file sharing, they should get a free pass: movie and music companies should just hand them their property and suck up "innovation's" hit to their bottom line - hits that wind up putting secretaries and warehouse workers, ordinary people, out of jobs. I like p2p file sharing, and personally don't mind if a technological shift displaces the workforce. That's the way thing go. But that doesn't mean that I think there's anything noble or legal about using bittorrent to download Star Wars or whatever. The Supreme Court members aren't fools and to date these file sharers have fancied themsleves modern-day Robin-Hoods bringing social justice one stolen video game at a time. Is anyone honestly surprised that the Supreme Court determined that they can be sued?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links