So, today was a black day for liberty and freedom. The Supremes decided FOR the Copyright Cartel and big business, and against the average citizen, the average consumer, and against freedom in general. The Grokster is only ONE of the many bad decisions. I found myself on the losing side of every one of them.

Wizbang summarized things this way
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006286.php
"Supreme Court Session Closes - Hollywood Wins Big, Reporters Lose, Ten Commandments Split"

They ruled against journalists being able to keep their sources anonymous.
"The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of journalists Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, who have been held in contempt for refusing to disclose who leaked the identity of a CIA agent to them.
The court's decision not to take the case, which could have led to a major precedent for the rights of reporters to keep sources confidential, means that Miller and Cooper, who were ordered to jail for their actions, will likely have to surrender sometime soon.

The case is now expected to return to the district court level, where judge Hogan, who offered the initial contempt ruling, would have to hold a hearing before any jailing would occur, Attorney Floyd Abrams, who represents Miller, told Editor&Publisher last week."

They did a split decision about showing the ten commandments in public locations.
A 10 commandments display in Austin Texas is OK, but in other places, it may not be.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/272005a.asp
"In identical 5-4 votes, the high court has ruled that because the Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses were motivated by a religious purpose, they are unconstitutional -- but that a monument on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, that contains the Decalogue may remain. Both majority opinions cite the Establishment Clause -- the so-called "separation of church and state" -- in their decisions.

Writing for the majority in the Kentucky cases, Justice David Souter wrote that "when the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality." Only "neutral" displays -- in historical context, for example -- are permissible, said the court. Joining Souter in the ruling against the Kentucky displays were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

Stating the majority opinion in the Texas case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist recognized the obvious "religious" nature of the Ten Commandments -- and has no problem with it. He wrote that "of course" the Ten Commandments are religious, and therefore the Texas monument "has religious significance."

"[But] simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he added."

So, as long as the Ten Commandments are NOT religious in their presentation, it is OK, but if they become presented as religious, then they are NOT ok.

I think this is highly schizophrenic and fuzzy thinking. My parents were both ministers, and I have , in my history, studied lots of religions. The Ten "COMMANDMENTS" are NOT the "ten suggestions", not the "ten damn good ideas", not "10 cool things to try if you're not busy with other things"...the operative word is ten COMMANDMENTS, and WHO is commanding them? Is it the tooth fairy, is it Santa...NO..it's GOD, and how is that NOT a religious proclamation and statement of religious dogma?

When the Grokster decision came down, I felt I was hit in the stomach. When I learned of the OTHER decisions, I was more and more depressed about the direction of our country.

These decisions come on the heels of this new decision of the Court that big business can use Eminent Domain, to take your house and property, if they show an economic benefit to your community.

Back to the Grokster decision, this is the bottom line:
"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," wrote Justice David Souter."

Hmmm.."distributes a device" and "...clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement..."

Now, you note it basically is saying that the "device" has to have a "clear expression" or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement. This is QUITE different than saying that extraordinary methods must be taken to prevent infringement...to me, it says that you can't go out of your way to promote infringement either through words or deeds.

More and more, the little man (read you and me) is losing his and her rights, and the conglomerate, multinational corporations and Copyright Cartel Mogols are sequestering away content, and rubbing your nose in it!


~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

The Supreme Court is to the average citizen as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.

Hmmm, I like the ring of that. Seems familiar.

Is the Wiccan Reade posted in any public offices?

I think it is interesting they left the gigantic hole in the ruling that allow other people to distribute the same exact thing as long as they don't make a big deal about infringing copyright.

So even if LimeWire gets closed down next, someone can pick up the open source code and distribute the exact same thing as a scripture spreader.

For those interested in downloading and reading the full Grokster decision in PDF format, we have posted two download links for the decision.

Please visit http://www.boycott-mpaa.com for the link, and we also have one analysis article posted as well.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I have read the entire Supreme Court decision, as well as both arguments for the decision - about 50 pages of disseration-level reading. They made a LOT of references to the Betamax ruling, but that was because there was a lot of differences between the cases.

I remind you again, devil's advocate here... The Sony case said it was legal to use the VCR for an otherwise legal purpose. The VCR had significant legal uses, and it's chief use (as the Supreme Court saw it) was for timeshifting. The advertising of the time suggested entirely legal purposes, such as taping your shows for later. Compare that to Grokster - it's original message in advertising was something like 'still wanna beat the Man? Try us out', and was specifically targeted (AND TIMED) at the people who were growing weary of Napster's battles and eventual shut-down... When you look at things that way, you're no longer comparing apples to apples.

I would suspect that the reasoning behind the "gigantic hole" is elegently simple. The Supreme Court is THE law of the land, regardless of what the politicians say. Because of that, it's in their best interest to rule as specifically to the case because they don't want to be overruled or overturned by the next generation of Supreme Courts. Also, they realize that their decision will be far-reaching, but they don't want it to be over-reaching any more than it needs to be.

The moral of the story seems to be (once again, devil's advocate) that if your new business doesn't infringe on copyrights, you should be fine. If you think it might infringe, you'll have to show that the majority using it are using it properly & for legal purposes.

(Last time, devil's advocate) I'm failing to see which freedoms are being taken away from Joe Normal, the average American citizen. He is not inventing software (if he even knows how to use it well); he has little talent in creating new uses or ways of doing things; he has very little patience for things that don't work. Stop me if I'm lying, but fix these lines of thought from the devil's advocate.

The Supreme Court is not THE law of the land...the Constitution is.
They are just men and women INTERPRETING (albeiting imperfectly, and I assert, occasionally incorrectly) the Law of the Land.

Freedom is a wide topic. Freedom implies the ability to do things without being hampered. I assert that imposing laws and methods to prevent free exchange of digital files as interfering with the freedom of those people who wish to do this.

You have to remember, I am a non-violent anarchist, and laws BY DEFINITION, in my mind, are blockages, frustrations, and limits to freedoms. N'est pas?

Definitions of "freedom"
From Dictionary.com
"free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge). "

From http://www.m-w.com/ (Merriam-Webster)
"Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d : EASE, FACILITY e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use
2 a : a political right b : FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE
synonyms FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LICENSE mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. FREEDOM has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated . LIBERTY suggests release from former restraint or compulsion . LICENSE implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom . "

So, yes, I assert that they are abriding freedoms.


~Code

"If you think it might infringe, you'll have to show that the majority using it are using it properly & for legal purposes."

Again, from 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," wrote Justice David Souter."

This standard is meant to say that those who are "distributing devices" must not affirmatively through clear expression or affirmative steps, act to foster infringement.

So, if you set up a filetrading system, don't put a notice saying...DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED FILES YOU DON'T HAVE PERMISSION TO DOWNLOAD...DON'T INSTALL SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO FIND AND DOWNLOAD RIAA SONGS AND MPAA MOVIES...

That is certainly a different standard than saying you must take extraordinary methods to make sure no copyrighted files are traded. This type of standard would be unduly burdensome on a network where people might be sharing thousands or millions of files.

Much of what the Supreme Court decides amounts to them putting the final decisions for these issues out of their hands and back into the hands of the lower courts. Regarding filesharing, it would be up to a lower court to determine if a device or software is only used specifically for copyright infringement.
Regarding eminent domain, there are 14 states which protect property owners from their land being seized for private development, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court decision.
My impression is that they are avoiding conflicts by leaving these decisions to state courts or lower federal courts.

well said, Code.

The supremes' decision is unfortunate and very, very, very disappointing. I was personally surprised and angered by it.

See, this is why no government positions should be held by one person for the remainder of their lifetime.

You seem a bit morose today Code.

Let me spin it for you

--------------

The interesting news today is that, the opinion of the court didn't make a single mention of "sharing" or "uploading" being illegal. It did make clear that downloading CAN be illegal by using statements like "...given the number of infringing downloads..." The opinion did remind us, "[t]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another,"

However, ironically, we all know that currently people are being sued for "sharing" not for actually making infringing copies. This opinion helps explain when this can be possible.

"When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against... [*insert your convenient target here*] ...for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement."

It then goes on to explain these terms.

"One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or
encouraging direct infringement, ... and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it,"

So if you were to "share" a file, that could give you trouble if you were intentionally inducing or encouraging direct INFRINGEMENT. However, if you were to share a file and those who "copied" the file from you did so WITHOUT infringing copyright, there would be no direct infringement so you could not possibly be liable for indirect infringement.


"How could this be possible? Aren't all of my copies unauthorized?"

Well the short answer is no. Most of the copies you make are "authorized" copies.

Congress and the courts have authorized consumers to make copies in many situations. ESPECIALLY WITH MUSIC.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on ... the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Congress specifically authorized you to copy music at will in exchange for special fees you pay on blank media and audio hardware. This money is paid to the music industry to compensate them for your right to make copies.

The Sony decision, authorizes consumers to make copies of television and radio programs.

§ 117 authorizes you to make copies of computer software in certain situations including for archival purposes.

If we stick to only making these authorized copies, everyone should be OK.

Ok, they finally won one. But how are they going to enforce it without going bankrupt?

Welcome back Captain!

Everytime my CD burning software opens up there's a message stating that the software is not intended for the use of making copies of copyrighted works for illegal distrubution.
Okay p2p network software writers, put a warning on yer software. Not intended for the sharing of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner.
There's even a warning on my newest grrlfriend's curling iron, "not for internal usage"...
Soon the govn'mt will have me place a warning on my chilli...

How's this for inducing infringement? It is every red blooded American's patriotic duty to engage in as much rampant copyright infringement as humanly possible.

The Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor of removing the RIAA from the p2p net.

Black day for liberty and freedom?

No matter what religion you ascribe to, the Ten Commandments are the basis of law in all Judeo-Christian countries, yet does not "belong" to any specific organized religion. It is not Jewish, nor Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or Anglican.

I think every politician in the country needs to be reminded pointedly on a daily basis not to lie, steal, covet and kill, no matter what their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

raoulduke -- I don't see the profit angle.

"The Supreme Court is not THE law of the land...the Constitution is.
They are just men and women INTERPRETING (albeiting imperfectly, and I assert, occasionally incorrectly) the Law of the Land."

Until there is a subsequent Supreme decision that makes an about-face over an issue already interpreted by the high court, its rulings count as the force of law, don't they?
If that's the case, then the law of the land consists of the Constitution + the entire history of the latest Supreme Court rulings that have resulted from their purview...

Thanks CodeWarrior!