I really don't want to sit and "spin" this thing...

but...

let's "spin" it anyway!

Post reasons of how and why the SCOTUS decision will actually and ultimately work out in FAVOR of the artist/fan/consumer in unexpected ways.

READ the actual decision (and think about what it means carefully) BEFORE you decide to slit your wrists.

ALL that the Supreme Court did was to send this thing back to the lower courts saying that IF the p2p company in question was deliberately encouraging users to use their particular network/application to infringe copyrights...

I have 10 thousand other things I could say at this moment, but I would rather see what YOU guys and gals first.

But, PLEASE take the decision vs Grokster with a grain of salt.
NO MATTER what the MEDIA implies at you... it is STILL legal to communicate, (even when you are NON-commercially sharing files) with one another.

Boycott-Riaa (And I, myself, PERSONALLY)do NOT advocate the sharing/trading of un-authorized music/media files! Read our MISSION STATEMENT!

Boycott-Riaa has known from the "get-go" that the p2p services have always been nothing more than an avenue for the major labels to further promote their own product. P2p for the most part has been USELESS to the true "indie" artist.

And THINK about it a minute...

...those p2p COMPANIES have only been trying to jockey for "position" with an ultimate goal in mind of "replacing" in the online world the very RIAA enemy we all hate anyway!

P2p COMPANIES can go to hell as far as I am concerned. If you actually look at things, SCOTUS said the same thing yesterday.

They didn't rule "in favor" of the RIAA/MPAA...

They ruled AGAINST somebody else BECOMING the online/digital-age VERSION of the same thing.

===========

(Ask yourself... "How the hell are we supposed to "discover" something new/unheard of via p2p???" Don't the average p2p users naturally only look for stuff that they already know exists???
...that very same payola emplaced stuff they saw on eMTv or heard on the radio?)

================================

Bottem line folks,

don't "freak"

(And, turn off your damn Tv/radio once in a while. EVERY SINGLE MAJOR NEWS SOURCE ON TV IS ULTIMATELY OWNED BY THE SAME 5 CORPORATES THAT ALSO OWN/AND/OR ARE THE RIAA/MPAA!!!)

Be SMART!

Get your news ONLINE! (Sure, you got to filter the CRAP from the nuggets, but at least there ARE occasional nuggets online! I PROMISE there are NONE on the boob-tube!)

...well, CSPAN is ok once in a while (only because they sometimes turn the camera on and let it roll un-editorialized.)

====================

(I am sorry folks, I meant to say a whole lot of something else in this topic, but I turned it into a "free-flow" rant instead.)


============

Ignore my incoherent "rant" and:

Please post reasons why the MGM v Grokster decision is GOOD for the People...

...and, ALSO post reasons why it is BAD.

DISCUSS!

PROPERTY IS THEFT?....Squeezed in between today's shocking news from the Supreme Court that no one is planning to retire, the justices also managed to hand down a few new decisions on matters of public import. The blogosphere, which generally seems to believe that file sharing companies ought to be wholly immune to the statutes of the United States based on the "insanely great technology" exemption of the 14th amendment, was especially unhappy over the court's unanimous ruling that file sharing companies can, in fact, be sued if they incite their customers to break the law.

The ruling seems pretty unexceptional to me, though. Here's the key sentence:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

Italics mine. In any other field, that would be considered a pretty high bar to meet, so I'm not sure what the problem is. If gun manufacturers took out TV ads suggesting that their products could be used to assassinate world leaders, the law would probably take a dim view of that too.

Bottom line: as near as I can tell, all that the Grokster/StreamCast/BitTorrent nitwits need to do is quit yammering excitedly about how great their products are as a way of ripping off The Man. If they just enforce rigid message discipline emphasizing only the legal benefits of their goods, everything will be OK.

And how should they do this? My advice is to hire a few executives from tobacco companies to show them how it's done. A lot of them are probably looking for work these days, and they know this routine cold.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5539

"with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"

those are the "KEY" WORDS Twoby2 (which, if taken literally, I myself must also admit to agree with!)

FUCK the p2p companies! (Why replace the "old-school label with an digital online label that will just fuck over both customer and artist the same?)

It SHOULD be illegal to make $$$ from unauthorized use of copyrighted works ...especially when the creator/artist are the one's who are loosing out.

(But DESPITE what MOST people think...
this all was not exactly OUR issue anyway!)

Confused yet folks? Please don't be. We are PRO artist. We are PRO songwriter. We are PRO fan/consumer.

What we HATE is the illegal/immoral RIAA pig monopolists that do everything they can to keep the artist/musician FROM the fan/consumer!

p2p coulda been the "evolutionary result" of the old-school RIAA labels.

(Think about it... this stuff is convoluted and DEEP!)

Damn, I already posted about this in two other places. I hope you don't mind me repeating myself.
--------------------
"This very breadth of the software?s use may well draw the public directly into the debate over copyright policy,"

That would be good! I wish I was as optimistic as Justice Souter, though.

I also am a little more pessimistic than Shmoo on fighting the case on its merits, because the decision:

1. Documented that Grokser, and StreamCast are slime balls, and it is probably karma slap them silly.

2. It is excellent that the meanies have to blow more buckets of money IF they choose to slap them silly.

The other good things are:

3. Leaving anybody the ability to pickup the gnutella source and form a new company to distribute it as "free-speech only (not for infringing copyright) ware."

4. Stressing that"downloading" causes copyright infringements, not "sharing", by using phrases like "...given the number of infringing downloads..." (There is but a single counter allusion mentioned, but I'm sure Mroop will finger it. *smile*)

5. Pointing out, "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*.

The last point is really the one which can be spun most sympathetically. If you don't see how, just let me know and I'll babble on some more.

Keep your spirits high Shmoo!

What many folks are forgeting to mention is that none of these companies will have to pay up if they move their headquarters and home of business registration. Basically the RIAA can only sue companies within the United States.

In order to sue a company in another country they usually have to get permission from that government. There are dozens of countries around the globe that won't allow any company or US entity to come anywhere near their legal system.

All the p2p companies have to do is simply move their operations to one of these countries and they will become immune to the sue happy RIAA.

Not saying I completely support the p2p networks, I am merely pointing out why this decision really is completely pointless. Even if these networks get sued out of business, dozens of others that are rooted in other contries will be ready to take their place. In essence, the RIAA and MPAA are still screwed and the fight will go on.

I would like to say that under this kind of standard, mazda should receive over a million speeding tickets each year.

let's not even talk about subaru and infiniti.

They encourage their customers to speed and drive recklessly.

My post in the other grokster thread iterates my concern quite well regarding this "inducement" idea.

I don't think SCOTUS went far enough in outlining how much they borrow from patent law.

This has the potential to be narrow, and amazing potential for abuse by judges with an agenda.

www.eff.org/deeplinks has the optimistic interpretation of what a guilty finding for inducement would mean.

why do i somehow believe that this will NOT be the course the average judge takes? why is it i think this ruling is an example of "ex post facto" and potentially unconstitutional in that you can be punished for past transgressions which at the time were reasonable, but are no longer legal under this new standard.

The ruling did not stifle innovation. It kind of let Streamcast serve as a guinea pig for other p2p companies (i.e. the evidence that was used against Streamcast will mysteriously be much harder to come by in the future).

"They encourage their customers to speed and drive recklessly."

That's a good analogy. Speedometers go up to 140 and they drive fast in the commercials. Like a p2p commercial that shows someone downloading RIAA music with a note that says "trained downloader behind a firewall, do not attempt."

"why is it i think this ruling is an example of "ex post facto" and potentially unconstitutional"

Because you are a wannabe lawyer blowhard who likes to use big words but doesn't know what the hell he is talking about?

##*SNORT*##. spews coca cola and nasal fluids out both sides of head, all over keyboard and monitor.

don't do coke. coke kills

actually it's a plus. after napster was killed what happened? P2P exploded in a way that made it difficult for the industry to touch. they also gave p2p so much free publicity it made more people aware. There'll be a new technology written by someone not interested in making money and releasing it as open source which will give even more headachs for the industry.

Necessity is the mother of all inventions

"My advice is to hire a few executives from tobacco companies to show them how it's done."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing the RIAA/MPAA won was the right to have a trial and try to prove their case, while providing the world with a clue by urging p2p to delete the RIAA.

The Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor of our boycott.

Definition of a mroop:

"a wannabe lawyer blowhard who likes to use big words but doesn't know what the hell he is talking about..."

George I like your outlook. I started to look at the decision but not being a lawer I don't speak lawyerish so I'm not totally sure what it exactly says. Perhaps someone could do a thread breaking the decision down, paragragh by paragraph in plain English and that'll be a help for many of us. sure would be a lot better than reading all the different blogs about death to the industry.

"Perhaps someone could do a thread breaking the decision down, paragragh by paragraph in plain English and that'll be a help for many of us. sure would be a lot better than reading all the different blogs about death to the industry"

www.eff.org

MGM Triumphs Over Grokster, Not P2P
06.27.05


By Elizabeth Millard
Although MGM triumphed in its recent Supreme Court case against Grokster, its victory may prove to be a hollow one, some legal experts and peer-to-peer users believe.

The court's decision seems to severely curtail what file-sharing services and software will be allowed to do in the future, but such a reading of the decision is misleading, said Lawrence Solum, John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law.

"This is an unwelcome verdict for the industry, and a positive ruling for P2P," he said. "It might be viewed as a tactical loss in the short run for Grokster, but it's definitely a strategic victory for P2P in the long run."

Solum observed that in its ruling, the high court sided with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. because Grokster Ltd. intentionally induced copyright infringement.

In issuing its decision based on that judgment, the court essentially provided a blueprint for other P2P companies looking to avoid litigation.

"The court laid out what should be avoided in internal memoranda and advertising," Solum said. "With this information, P2P services and software developers can easily figure out how to immunize themselves from prosecution."

Doug Lichtman, who penned an amicus brief on behalf of MGM, echoed the view that the recent ruling is not cause for celebration for those fighting Grokster and similar services.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1831862,00.asp

sorry raoulduke1 I went there and all I could get was the text of the decision, portions of the decision and opinions from both sides. What I'm looking for is the decision sumerized in plain english. guess I'm just not too bright

Let me just say this if it was a ruling against p2p then the content cartel will sue with abanden speeding up the process of sueing till they are extinct. blessing in disguise indeed.

All the Supreme Court said, in its muddled way, was that if you promote copyright infringement for your own profit you can be sued. It's like saying that someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theatre cannot claim Freedom of Speech as a defence against penalty.
It didn't say Grokster loses (though it probably will), only that it has actively made itself the potential target of a lawsuit by its actions in pursuit of its own profit. But that case, and any such case, still has to be tried on its own merits in a lower court.
The Supremes did not make a clear cut ruling either way about P2P and copyright infringement, or about fair use, or even about those who copy for their personal use as opposed to profit.
So we didn't win anything, but we really didn't lose anything either...unless you're counting easy access to sites like Grokster who rather blatantly and hypocritically defy the whole prinicple of copyright protection.

What happens when the first legal p2p service is available, with the capability to block any files which the operator does not explicitly permit? Something like Microsoft's new 'Avalanch' system.

Under the new ruleing, the RIAA could argue:

1. P2P technology can be made in a way that prevents infringement, because at least one company has done it.
2. So, allowing infringement isn't nessicary.
3. By allowing it when the means to prevent it, a company is encourageing it.
4. And thus, under the recent ruleing, is liable.

Yes. "Vicarious infringement."

For file sharing companies who were taking in profits but remiss in not making effort to curb infringement when they could have, at least given some precautionary warning, the sky may not be falling, but it sure looks heavy about now.

Grokster is likely done for. Other file sharing companies will certainly take corrective action now.
But it remains to be seen what the copyright cartel does about what has already happened...because those companies offering file sharing services have ALREADY known better for quite some time but did little or nothing about it (in most cases not even a warning).

Think god for hackers (not crackers) that can write C code.

" Date: June 29, 2005 @ 7:26 AM
What happens when the first legal p2p service is available, with the capability to block any files which the operator does not explicitly permit? Something like Microsoft's new 'Avalanch' system."

Avalanch does not really exist yet, except for simulations, and on paper.
There is an article here somewhere in which BT's creator breaks down why avalanche probably won't work either.

Now read the rest of your post.

"Under the new ruleing, the RIAA could argue:

1. P2P technology can be made in a way that prevents infringement, because at least one company has done it.
2. So, allowing infringement isn't nessicary.
3. By allowing it when the means to prevent it, a company is encourageing it.
4. And thus, under the recent ruleing, is liable."

You are absolutely right.
As long as M$oft can pretend Avalanch is real. / puts on tinfoil hat / ......
I don't think Avalanch is intended to be created. If it IS created and fails,those arguments you pointed out fall apart. As long it remains a working theory, those arguments hold. Who better to use cash and technobabble to support it than M$oft ?