Morpheus and Grokster ruled legal


log in or register to remove this ad

Uhmm, are you saying that file-sharing programs have (as in, before this judge ruled that the software is legal) been illegal where you live? That's ridiculous.
 

Psionicist said:
Uhmm, are you saying that file-sharing programs have (as in, before this judge ruled that the software is legal) been illegal where you live? That's ridiculous.

The point was that in previous decisions on Napster the courts ruled that for centralized file sharing that the software company was liable for illegal swapping. This effectively killed Napster. From that decision the decentralized concept was employed by the software companies. The Music Industry then sued the decentralized software providers on the same basis as thier Napster Decision hoping for the same result. This is the first ruling on the new round of lawsuits, and if it had gone the other way then the software could have been ruled illegal.

Like Schroedinger's Cat the software was both legal and illegal , and until this decision was reached we did not know the legality of the software.
 

Brown Jenkin said:


The point was that in previous decisions on Napster the courts ruled that for centralized file sharing that the software company was liable for illegal swapping. This effectively killed Napster. From that decision the decentralized concept was employed by the software companies. The Music Industry then sued the decentralized software providers on the same basis as thier Napster Decision hoping for the same result. This is the first ruling on the new round of lawsuits, and if it had gone the other way then the software could have been ruled illegal.

Like Schroedinger's Cat the software was both legal and illegal , and until this decision was reached we did not know the legality of the software.

Oh my, I forgot about Napster. What about DeCSS? If it's legal under gnu/linux and other "alternate" OS shouldn't it be under windows too?
 

Brown Jenkin said:
Like Schroedinger's Cat the software was both legal and illegal , and until this decision was reached we did not know the legality of the software.
However, lest we forget the US legal system, this is, more than likely, going to be appealed. So, it legal at the moment, but a higher court could rule it illegal, and then an even higher court could rule it legal again. I have a fealing that this is going to the Supremes.
 


My opinion:

I think the main problem with these programs is not that they allow file downloads. It's that they allow file distribution without forcing the originator of the illegal copies to take responsibility for his/her actions.

I think file-sharing software should have built-in features that a) would alert you when items in your Shared folder are being downloaded from you, and b) would require you "digitally sign" a statement for each item you place in your Shared folder stating that you are the copyright holder or are otherwise authorized to distribute the file in question (of course, you could lie about it, but it could then be used against the distributor in court), and c) marks each file you distribute from your Shared folder with your name and address in case there's any need to know where it came from.

In my opinion, the chief problem lies not with those doing the downloading (yes, they're making illegal copies, and it's wrong, but it's also understandable -- people like "free" stuff) -- but if we could better deal with the sources of these files (the masses of users who store files to which they don't own the copyright in their Shared folder), I think the problems would begin to diminish a bit.
 

Psionicist said:


Oh my, I forgot about Napster. What about DeCSS? If it's legal under gnu/linux and other "alternate" OS shouldn't it be under windows too?

DeCSS != file sharing. The digital copyright act (millenium goes in there somewhere) wouldn't necessarily be affected by this ruling. DeCSS is decryption.

This does not alter the dmca's (dcma?) constitutionality or lack thereof. Completely different debate.

Aaron
 

afstanton said:


DeCSS != file sharing. The digital copyright act (millenium goes in there somewhere) wouldn't necessarily be affected by this ruling. DeCSS is decryption.

This does not alter the dmca's (dcma?) constitutionality or lack thereof. Completely different debate.

Aaron

Oh my yes, but this is more of a law discussion than anything. I have written an optimized port of decss in assembly language (nasm) that's way faster than the usual algorithm written in C, but I have o idea if I can spread my work or not. It's legal in sweden though.
 
Last edited:

EricNoah said:
I think file-sharing software should have built-in features that a) would alert you when items in your Shared folder are being downloaded from you, and b) would require you "digitally sign" a statement for each item you place in your Shared folder stating that you are the copyright holder or are otherwise authorized to distribute the file in question (of course, you could lie about it, but it could then be used against the distributor in court), and c) marks each file you distribute from your Shared folder with your name and address in case there's any need to know where it came from.

The intent of the Digital Millenium Act was to make a correlation between crimes commited in the "real world" and similar crimes in the cyber world. So lets look at how they enforce "real world" copyright infringement and create a cyber version of that enforcement.

Crime Enforrement
-------- -----------------
Individual copys a rented movie *Nothing
Individual photocopys book *Nothing
Individual sells illegal VHS tapes Fines, confiscated goods, jail

* There may actually be a law against these, but individual privacy prevents the government from checking every VHS tape you own for illegal copies.

So a cyber version of the existing laws would NOT target those who are "sharing" file but would target those who "sell" such files. The problem with this approach is that is would virtually ignore the 99% of file sharing that occurs (and cuts into the movie/music industry proffits).

In my opinion, the chief problem lies not with those doing the downloading (yes, they're making illegal copies, and it's wrong, but it's also understandable -- people like "free" stuff) -- but if we could better deal with the sources of these files (the masses of users who store files to which they don't own the copyright in their Shared folder), I think the problems would begin to diminish a bit.

I think this is a possibility, wowever it would not eliminate the problem.. it would just make the line between legal and illegal more defined. I know for a fact the current detection methods of many cyber police are adeqiate to detect when someone is sharing a particular copyrighted item. I got a nasty email for sharing the spiderman movie within 8 hours of my actual download. (oops, I was sharing everything i downloaded by default, so I had a nasty email from the cyber cops and my isp in the morning. That simple message detered me from using any of the Kazaa clones. It drasticly cut back my downloads, and I stick to private FTP groups or IRC. IRC is a great example of a program that has the pottential to distribute huge quantities of files, but the learning curve and lack of pretty interfaces keeps the majority of casual file swappers away from it.
 

Remove ads

Top