Pressing questions remain...
 

Every once in a while, I disagree with a Supreme Court decision -- but no one can accuse the Justices of not earning their pay!

Good point, Voldenui. In fact I myself have used p2p networks to access project Gutenberg files for research. It does need to be pointed out that not all p2p sharing is done with the intention of violating copyright.

I have never used Grokster, but from the press reports and the seemingly well-considered argument in the Supreme Court decision, it seems clear that -- in this instance -- it was primarily about copyright violation.

Nevertheless it is appropriate to ask: At hat point does the service provider become liable for its user’s criminal activities? Would it be reasonable, for example, for the RIAA/authorities to demand the installation of technology that prevents illegal file sharing activity in p2p sharing networks? By the same token, would law enforcement agencies have the right to demand that Google and other search sites install filtering technology to prevent access to child pornography, for instance? (...an issue raised in another thread)

I think there are a lot of pressing issues here.

With best regards,
ArcticStones

I get email notifications of significant news developments from Fox and the Washington Post. Re. this present report, I don't know why Fox reporting a 9-0 decision is more suspect than reading it elsewhere. A 9-0 decision is a 9-0 decision, no matter who reports it.

Not often you find Scalia, Thomas, Souter and Ginsburg agreeing on something so strongly. As I've listened to commentary on the decision, it seemed the critical point was that the justices thought Grokster et al were somehow advertising that their capablities re. illegal file sharing, and were doing so as a kind of "selling point."

So what happens now to Limewire, Acquisition, and even the gnutella protocol? Same thing?

And how is any of this different from the sale of something like Radar Detectors (aka "fuzz-busters")?

(Howdy Markle! :) Good to see you here.)

Agreed! That is the crux of the matter.

I was not saying they were lying.
However, last time I looked, it is not from their site that you'll be able to find links to actual court documents.
Which is, beyond the points already made by both Markle and arctic stones, not exactly how I conceive serious journalism.
They only link to other stories on their site, all references to their sources need to be found out by the reader.

I share your fear those are indeed shortcuts that might be made as I already wrote in my previous post.

I agree, that unless declaring those devices alternate purpose to be Microwave-oven-leakage-detectors, I can't see how they would pass the Sony criteria indeed.

Which in turn, is a liberal-leaning organization, with their own history of systematically skewed reporting. You're not going to find fair and balanced from any source, as far as I've seen. Don't believe any of them.

Oh, except for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. That's the one source of news I find valuable and very well balanced. IE, they point out that all of them are idiots.

This decision doesn't seem all that important to me. The points used to make the case mean that basically similar technologies need to at least give the illusion that they are marketed for other purposes, not just piracy.

And there's still usenet, which still is far better than any P2P network. I don't understand why people don't use it instead.

If the ruling hinges on the encouragement factor, i.e. the principal use of the software is illegal, and the authors encourage that use, I can see this ruling. The same is true of Radar Detectors - as you say, they really have no other practical use. There are lots of other ways to exchange files besides these methods.

The principal use of guns (and I don't own one) is to shoot things. Judging from the statistics, those "things" all too often include people. With the exception of law enforcement and suicide, people shooting is illegal. Since a large fraction (I'm guessing) of the folks killed by a gunshot are probably the victims of weapons that have never been used for any legitimate purpose before they were shot, it makes one wonder where else this ruling could wander.

They are radio receivers, and early laws declare that all Americans have a right to receive all radio transmissions.

You are guessing, and you are wrong, and now you're turning this into a gun discussion which will surely get the thread closed real fast. In any case, this is unrelated because gun ownership falls under Constitutional law. Also this has already been decided, when a city sued a gun company for marketing "something designed only to kill." The courts soundly rejected that.

Shrewd observation, that. ;)

Certainly not my intention (to get the thread closed). As a Canadian, I'm not up on what's legal and not in the USA. [... and Craig Arko confirms that it will - I find that interesting too. I clearly don't have the right PC sensitivities.]

I've had a couple of very good but private discussions on gun facts and laws with some people here, stemming from some open threads. It's really easy to get a thread closed here to begin with, and I'm just guessing that gun law discussion would be at the top of that list.

As I scan through the decision here, I keep feeling more and more that it's not as important as we may first believe. As with many SCOTUS decisions, it's very narrowly-focused.

I'm completely with you that parsing information without looking at sources and agendas is futile.

But there is a huge difference in quality between publications actually linking to the sources they use. You do not need to believe what they write, you can check the facts.
And voting with your feet will encourage better journalism.

Subtly mingling fact and opinion without saying so is clearly a dishonest attempt to deceive the reader.

Getting a gun-discussion started here will become even more confusing once different cultures, such as europeans, entirely unfamiliar with the concept, start chiming in.

I hope that the Sony ruling will stand unchallenged and all this will finally result in MGM et al. being granted a complete trial before they loose rather than being thrown out at once...

There's quite a sensible comment here:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050627-5042.html

Does the industry have a dilemma?
 

I know it’s political, but I just can’t resist... The BBC website had fierce debates when the British Parliament were discussing whether or not to make fox hunting illegal.

I wrote that I supported fox hunting -- but with the provision that the prey had at least a 30 % chance to kill the hunter. ;)

Oh well, back to more serious topics, and ones which are relevant to the thread. The recording industry seems to be in a bit of a dilemma. A lot of people here in Norway are currently boycotting CDs with music content that they can’t transfer onto their PC/Mac/MP3 player. Is anything similar happening in the states? DRM seems not to be such a simple issue, nor a lifesaver for the industry.

-- ArcticStones

Enough, now, on the "bias in the media" current of this thread! There are sites galore where you can argue that point. I got the email from Fox and linked to the page; that's all there is to it, really.

Now, if, as we seem to agree, the major problem was the "encouragement" of illegal activity, then I don't see how an ISP, an iPod, or a CD burner are affected, here (as some sites have maintained). Apple doesn't advertise the iPod as a place to store illegally-obtained music; they actually provide an alternative to doing so with the Music Store. As for ISPs, maybe they could be required to block whatever ports are used by file-sharing protocols, but as they're not advertising their services to make file-sharing possible, then that would be a stretch.

The principle seems to be that something is mostly used to facilitate illegal activity, and advertises itself as such. Aside from radar detectors, I can't think of anything else quite like what was happening with file-sharing. Perhaps programs like OurTunes would fit this description, as it seems to be primarily about facilitating illegal activity.

I think this is the key. I now understand that for radar detectors there is a right to receive radio emissions that trumps the intended use. For the file sharers, there was no such superior right (as there is with arms).

Thus Phil St. Romain's "The principle seems to be that something is mostly used to facilitate illegal activity, and advertises itself as such." with the caveat that there be no superceding right, seems to apply and the range of application is narrow.

Thanks for the greeting, Phil. After reading the news out of Wichita yesterday, I wished I hadn't, and I don't know how to get it out of my mind.

But moving on.....

At the risk of repeating what's already been said, this case is not about outlawing technology. It's about controlling the illegal USE of technology. Knives are not outlawed; using knives for criminal purposes is outlawed.

Who can deny that the software and protocols for the original Napster, Grokster, etc. were written FOR THE VERY PURPOSE of downloading music that they didn't own and provided the means for setting up networks and databanks to do it on a wholesale basis? One of the reasons that software enablers after Napster carefully avoided having a website with music storage on it was to try to avoid the legal liability for abetting illegal downloading. They wanted to be able to say, "We just put the software out there, we can't control what people do with it." But that was totally nudge-nudge-wink-wink, because everybody knew what it was there for, and WHY it was written in the first place.

Napster, Grokster, etc. did not put out technology that "among other things" allowed illegal downloading. Illegal downloading was their very essence. That's why they got zapped yesterday.

How do we know when similar technology, like iTunes, is NOT being used for illegal purposes? When the owners of the copyrighted material that they trade in don't complain about it in court.

Markle

(Edited for typo)

Aljazeera’s story on Supreme Court ruling
 

And for balance, here is the story run by Aljazeera on the topic:

Court rules against file-sharing firms

Aljazeera is often referred to as “the Arabic CNN”.
For the record: there is not even a hint of anti-Western taint in the article.

-- ArcticStones

You're right. You'll notice at the bottom of the page the story was credited to the AP, a Western news service. They didn't add any editorial comments, like, "Infidel Court rules against downloading Satanic music...."

;)
Markle

...for balance
 

Honest reporting with an honest crediting of their source, whether the Associated Press or otherwise.
I have yet to see rhetoric like “infidel court” there. That said, news analyses are definitely from an Arab perspective. I read it for balance -- along with FoxNews and the Christian Science Monitor.

:cool:

I thought the winking smilie would make it clear that I was joking if the absurdity of the language wasn't enough......

How about chopping off the hands of illegal downloaders, the just punishment of all thieves?


:p
Markle

Having Court-TV from Wichita for breakfast can indeed be troubling.

That does not make the case at hand nearly as simple as you try to suggest.

The defendants clearly did everything they could to embarass themselves:
On page 18 of the ruling you can read:

"StreamCast even planned to flaunt the illegal uses
of its software; when it launched the OpenNap network,
the chief technology officer of the company averred that
ì[t]he goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued.
Itís the best way to get in the new[s].î Id., at 916."

That and other blunders could indeed justify not to throw the case out immediately like the first two instances did.

What this is really about has been pretty well wrapped up by Grokster lawyer Michael Page:
"To expand the law of vicarious liability, to attach liability to anyone who in theory could have acted as a policeman, leaves no border on it at all and leaves every technology vendor, every inventor, every merchant at the mercy of copyright holders who want to look around and go, "You could have done something about this. You're liable."

It's also bad policy. Regulating technologies in their infancy is a bad idea. Imagine had the Supreme Court agreed with appellants and had said VCR's are illegal, because you could build them to have that control. Today, VCR's garner more income for the music industry than movies. They would not exist had the studios gotten their wish and had them banned.

They told the world that the VCR was to copyright as the Boston Strangler is to a woman alone at home and predicted that it would be the death of copyright. This is not a new theme. Every time a new technology comes along, those with a vested interest in the old technology first ask the courts to ban it. Thankfully, the courts say no, and when they do, the copyright holders then find a way to make money off that new technology. Because every time technology removes the transaction costs between the artist and the consumer, that leaves money available for the artists."


And the court is not unaware of what the industry is trying to do once more. Here's what Judge Noonan said to Carey Ramos, counsel for the Music/Film Industry after a lengthy sortie on how filesharing is all theft etc. and who just before that had managed to call him Judge Norris.

"Judge Noonan: Let me say what your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new. And the question is, Does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that somthing new? And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it theft. You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem.

Ramos: Your Honor...

Judge Noonan: So address that, if you would...

Ramos: Your Honor, I would be, I. . .

Judge Noonan: ...rather than use abusive language.

Ramos: You Honor, the, the... and to get your name wrong, which I apologize for.

Judge Thomas: I'm sure Judge Norris has an opinion on this. [courtroom laughter]"

What Noonan says also opens another possible perspective:

There is an ongoing project to legislate on P2P:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040618-3906.html

In that context it might indeed be a smart move to deprive such initiatives of supporting arguments by having the inferior courts hear the case, without actually taking anything out of Sony.

Especially after reading the opinion of JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring, one really wonders why they finally voted with the majority.