A Supreme Decision
-
I assume most of you have at least heard of the File Sharing suit against Grokster that went before the Supreme Court this week. It's been covered in many places, mostly because the implications go far beyond the computing realm into all manner of inventions, mostly consumer inventions but Xerox and the photocopier was brought up by the justices. It's been written about in Wired, c|Net, and more, including numerous legal blogs. And, of course, Slashdot.
It's an interesting case and one that I'm not sure has a clear decision. Normally I'd say that there is no reason that the makers of Grokster should not have any liability, but I found an interesting argument in this. If their entire business model is predicated upon illegal activity, should they be shut down?
I do believe in copyright and one's right to license their work. I think the terms are too long right now, but that's another editorial :). I also don't like the idea that a middleman, such as a VCR maker, or some software company that sells a product to allow backups, is liable for infringements. If there are lots of people using a product to make unauthorized copies of my work, I'd need to go after the people that are breaking the law, not the software company.
So why does the suit against Grokster even have merit? Consider a company that builds some sort of container the prevents drugs inside from being detected. If their business model is to sell these boxes to drug couriers and there isn't really any other use, should they be shut down? I completely realize that production could be moved outside the US, and that is what can happen with software as well, but increasingly the world is being linked economically so there is recourse in many other countries.
What if someone sells a product whose only purpose is to kill people? Should they be shut down?
I'm not sure where I fall on this, but I do hope, and I am leaning pretty heavily, towards the idea that someone who facilitates illegal activity isn't liable if there are other uses for their technology. Peer to peer technology clearly has uses other than copyright infringement.
I'm just not sure with this company, whose business model is based on infringement, is one of them. I just wish they had tackled bitTorrent instead.
Steve Jones
-
What if someone sells a product whose only purpose is to kill people? Should they be shut down?
Definately not! Gun manufacturers should certainly not be shut down because they sell products who only purpose is to kill/injure people. This suit just shows how much personal responsibility in this country has been eroded. Its hard and there's very little in it to go after the actual "criminals" so companies are sued because they are easier targets and juries are more likely to just stick it to them.
Should I go on? Sigh....
-
You said:
What if someone sells a product whose only purpose is to kill people? Should they be shut down?
think only about bombs and all that stuff, that's made for the only purpose of 'defending the homeland'... killing thousand abroad...
Is the government going anyway against it?
-
I'm sure that bitTorrent is somewhere towards the top of their ever growing list
It'll be interesting to see whether the powers that be can keep up with the speed that new technology comes out at, especially when they go about it in such a peicemeal way.
-
All one would need to do is show that the product has merit outside illegal activity. Gun manufacturers use sport as well as protection. Biologists who develop gas for gas chambers would just need to show that biologists do other things that help.
One could easily argue that transfer of legitimate files are the reason they are in business.
-
I haven't really been following the details of the case that closely. How was it established that "their entire business model is predicated upon illegal activity"? I thought their business model was built on the sharing of digital files, both copyrighted and not.
There are as many legit uses for p2p and Grokster as there are illegal uses. The same could be said (and has been) of tape recorders, dvd burners, dvr's, cd burners, photocopiers, vcr's, etc. One of the biggest reasons it has gone this far is how easy it is to share copyrighted material on a large scale through p2p apps and the industrusty being affected. Every time a new way to record music or video comes out there is some sort of fight about with how it can be used illegally and what measures need to be put in place to stop it.
- What if someone sells a product whose only purpose is to kill people? Should they be shut down?Ask big tobacco how they feel about this!
-
I'd sure they'd be ok with it.
Who in their right minds would smoke cigarrettes? they (and I'm talking about all manufacturers of lethal devices here) make them as simple ornaments and it's hardly their fault if people have found another use for their product
-
Copyright law is intended to support the continued creativity of the work's author. Ideas that are the basis of most people’s work are not protected under copyright law. If they were, we (the authors) would quit creating new works because another person may have a different use for the product. This would increase our liability for future uses for which the author never intended.
I'm sure the makers of LEDs never intend they be made into flashlights, but that is what has happened.
Albert Einstein’s work in physics was a predecessor to the atomic bomb and he absolutely was against the use of his work for such a purpose. Shall we condemn him for his work because someone else decided it was necessary to destroy large groups of people?
Every author of software is shocked when they see how the users are actually using their software. To hold the author liable for how the user determines the software should be used is ludicrous. If someone determines that there is only one way to use a product, I would consider that person very arrogant.
Maybe I am naïve, but I doubt anyone starts a business just to steal someone’s work. If they did the premise for their business is flawed and no one would work with them for very long.
-
If Grokster looses this case expect there to be serious reprocussions in the tech world. However, it does look promising, the Supreme Court does seem to grok the technical issues, and they have talked about protecting the guy in the garage "creating the next iPOD".
Remember with the MP3 players came out? Lawsuits back and forth, and it was finally decided they have significant non-infringing use. This is more of the same...
The fact of it is, some really powerful people/orgs are scared of the power of peer to peer systems, and would like them all shut down. The main reason for this is that a peer to peer system allows people to communicate with each other in an uncontrolled manner.
The 2nd step would be to make sure that all tech products that can copy/publish files have DRM associated with them (broadcast flag, anyone?) Think about what this means, and it should scare you.
Personally I believe the real danger comes from Congress, and not from the courts. The MPAA and RIAA have some serious lobbying going on, and you can bet your senator can be bought.
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/mt/archives/mark_cuban_on_grokster.html
cl
Signature is NULL
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply