[SadisticSid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4627679.stm

Quite frankly I wasn't shocked by the ruling, but it's still a disappointment. I wonder what consequences it'll have for the major P2P networks though, as those whose servers operate from outside the US are pretty much untouchable. BitTorrent doesn't represent a 'network' as well, so it'll be individual torrent sites and trackers that get attacked if any. Let's just hope that other countries don't decide to follow suit...

[Fineus]

Interesting.. users aren't to blame for what they do with software anymore?

So a driver who goes for a hit and run isn't responsible for what his car does, by the same logic... the device that is capable of misuse is the cause. Not the user him/herself.

Also... I wonder if any P2P software was written in Microsoft C++ or whatever. If they used that software to write their P2P software then Microsoft is to blame.

That, or the whole world has gone even further to hell. Why the hell should the individual not be responsible for their own actions?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Interesting.. users aren't to blame for what they do with software anymore?

So a driver who goes for a hit and run isn't responsible for what his car does, by the same logic... the device that is capable of misuse is the cause. Not the user him/herself.

Also... I wonder if any P2P software was written in Microsoft C++ or whatever. If they used that software to write their P2P software then Microsoft is to blame.

That, or the whole world has gone even further to hell. Why the hell should the individual not be responsible for their own actions?

Exactly right; it's a case of judges with no interest or knowledge in technology seeking to restrict any development which potentially can be used for some illegitimate purpose.

Hard drives or CD-Rs (or DVD-Rs) can be used to make illegal copies; does that mean the manufacturers and driver providers can now be sued as well?  Or do they only wish to legislate against intangibles like software?

[karajorma]

Actually the answer is more ambiguous than that. If the supreme court had announced that Grokster was to blame for simply making software that could be used to commit a crime then they would have instantly opened the floodgates for a bunch of people to sue gun manufacturers.

What the Supreme Court ruled was that while Grokster (the software) was 100% legal Grokster (The company) might be liable if it was telling its users to break the law using its software.

Basically it's analgous to the difference between Smith & Weston making guns and them making guns and saying "Now you can rob all the banks you want to"

Legally that is correct but it just goes to show that the law is an ass because the RIAA can use this to crush any small P2P company simply with the threat that it must prove that it's not promoting the software to download illegal content.

However the second that the RIAA start winning cases on this ruling they open the floodgates to people suing the gun manufacturers again.

So basically the lawyers get rich and everything thing else stays pretty much the same as before.

El Reg  has a good explaination of what's going on as per usual.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
So a driver who goes for a hit and run isn't responsible for what his car does, by the same logic... the device that is capable of misuse is the cause. Not the user him/herself.  

Excepted cars aren't made for hit and run. P2P programs are made for... ok, let's be honest, what are they used for? What 99,9% of the users use them for?

[aldo_14]

The thing is, looking at the Grokster webpage, I can't see anything that does indicate inducement.  To me it appears the RIAA (and the Supreme Court agrees with this apparently) has defined inducement as not having some form of content restriction / censorship built into the system.  With a proper P2P system, that should be impossible IMO due to both the sheer quantity of files & users, and also because a true P2P shouldn't have a central point of restrictive control.

Originally posted by Nico


Excepted cars aren't made for hit and run. P2P programs are made for... ok, let's be honest, what are they used for? What 99,9% of the users use them for?

That doesn't matter; the purpose of P2P is to allow information (binary data) exchange.  Even when restrictions are placed upon the type of data (i.e. searching for audio MIME types), there is no fundamental technological need to have filtering of actual data beyond that.  It's like the difference between a mail service that delivers your mail, and that regularly opens your parcels & letters to check what's in them.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The thing is, looking at the Grokster webpage, I can't see anything that does indicate inducement.  To me it appears the RIAA (and the Supreme Court agrees with this apparently) has defined inducement as not having some form of content restriction / censorship built into the system.  With a proper P2P system, that should be impossible IMO due to both the sheer quantity of files & users, and also because a true P2P shouldn't have a central point of restrictive control.

Pretty much. So this will go to the lower courts. Grokster will say pretty much what you said and win yet again. RIAA will appeal back to the supreme court and all the lawyers will get richer.

[General Freak]

Well, of course the movie and music business supposedly benefits from it...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Pretty much. So this will go to the lower courts. Grokster will say pretty much what you said and win yet again. RIAA will appeal back to the supreme court and all the lawyers will get richer.

Aaah.... business lawyers.  What would we do without them?

Well, live happily ever after probably..........

[Nico]

Originally posted by aldo_14
That doesn't matter; the purpose of P2P is to allow information (binary data) exchange.  Even when restrictions are placed upon the type of data (i.e. searching for audio MIME types), there is no fundamental technological need to have filtering of actual data beyond that.  It's like the difference between a mail service that delivers your mail, and that regularly opens your parcels & letters to check what's in them.

You sound like the people who say rifles are not dangerous, it's the use people do with them that is

Honestly, I'm happy, no they'll sue the companies, not the people (and, even more honestly, I don't care, USA, you see... )

[deep_eyes]

heh GAME OVER LOL!

[IPAndrews]

So allowing a search for something illegal = promoting something illegal. How long before someone tries to use this on google?

[Zarax]

Ironically, Longhorn will have a (sort of) P2P engine integrated in the system

[Nico]

Ah yeah, mentioning Longhorn, and sorry to go OT, but when is that one due for, now?

[Zarax]

I think it's due for fall 2006/early 2007, the internal beta is coming next month but I cannot really give you many details as I'm under NDA...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Nico


You sound like the people who say rifles are not dangerous, it's the use people do with them that is

Honestly, I'm happy, no they'll sue the companies, not the people (and, even more honestly, I don't care, USA, you see... )

That's an entirely different analogy.  Rifles are designed to be dangerous (to fire a projectile at high velocity); P2P technology is simply a method of information transfer between machines that act as both client and server ('peers'). There's not an inherent property of P2P that makes it suited or useable only for distribution of pirated material; there's not even an inherent property that makes it limited to only those types of files that are usually pirate data (mp3, avi, etc).  

It's the same as saying File Transfer Protocol should be banned because it allows downloading of illegal stuff, or that HTML should be banned because it can allow the creation of paedophilic websites.   The principle difference - the only way it can be legally 'attacked' as is being done - is the aforementioned existence of different companies and the resulting software.  

But that's only a legitimate target if those companies are either encouraging piracy, or if they have not done enough within the restrictions of the technology to bar it.  The latter is the one I think the RIAA and MPAA want to use, but it's infeasible due to the very nature of P2P (arguably possible with mediated P2P, but I have personal experience of the issues dealing with the bottlenecks that presents).

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Nico


Excepted cars aren't made for hit and run. P2P programs are made for... ok, let's be honest, what are they used for? What 99,9% of the users use them for?

That's true. I'm fully aware what purpose Morpheus et al. serves. Technically, it could be used to transmit any sort of data, and I think that with Bit Torrent the case for legitimate use is a bit better, but everyone knows full well that the main purpose is copyright infringement.

It's being defended on strictly techincal grounds, the letter of the law, and for that I'm glad, since I don't particularly like to pay for things. But under the law of common sense, the companies should absolutely be accountable. The ruling won't change anything, it's the RIAA grasping at straws. They've already lost, filesharing isn't going away even if the Supreme Court were to make it punishable by death. It's like trying to stop a tsunami with your hands. You may have big hands, I admit, and you may succeed in stoping a few drop of water here and there, but in the end you are still up against a tsunami, and despite your efforts, it will sweep you away without the least bit of difficulty.

[aldo_14]

Another thing; if you make a copy of a CD onto a tape, or minidisk, or CDR for a friend, should the manufacturer of said things be punished?  After all, those media don't (with the possible exception of CD as a backup media on PC) have much other purpose beyond copying stuff in this way.

[Rictor]

Not true. Well, it's all grey territory anyway, but some is much less grey than others. CD-Rs and DVD-Rs are widely used for legitimate backup, so much so that it can not be truthfully claimed that their main purpose is copyright infringement. Like I said, BitTorrent is also used for legal purposes, I know that Linux distros are often made available with BT, and even Blizzard used it to release the WoW beta, so in that case the arguement could be made. But most 2nd generation P2P (Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare etc) are not particularly useful for distributing large files, as is the case with BitTorrent, so they are used mainly for music, apps and so forth.

Again, I'm not against filesharing. I do it all ther time, probably more than most. But I do acknowledge that a) it most cases, it is blatant theft and b) many, if not most, P2P programs are created expressely with copyright infringement in mind, and are used mainly for that purpose.

By the way, I am also against restrictive gun control, one of the rare cases where I think the American right has it right.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Not true. Well, it's all grey territory anyway, but some is much less grey than others. CD-Rs and DVD-Rs are widely used for legitimate backup, so much so that it can not be truthfully claimed that their main purpose is copyright infringement. Like I said, BitTorrent is also used for legal purposes, I know that Linux distros are often made available with BT, and even Blizzard used it to release the WoW beta, so in that case the arguement could be made. But most 2nd generation P2P (Kazaa, Morpheus, Bearshare etc) are not particularly useful for distributing large files, as is the case with BitTorrent, so they are used mainly for music, apps and so forth.

Again, I'm not against filesharing. I do it all ther time, probably more than most. But I do acknowledge that a) it most cases, it is blatant theft and b) many, if not most, P2P programs are created expressely with copyright infringement in mind, and are used mainly for that purpose.

By the way, I am also against restrictive gun control, one of the rare cases where I think the American right has it right.

Albiet distributing music, video (and arguably distributing 500MB+ video files passes the test of large file distribution) doesn't entail copyright abuse.

EDIT; one thing that does occur to me; some CDs have copy control to try and prevent conversion to MP3.  Thing is, does that not infringe my rights as a consumer to listen to said music on an MP3 player?