Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[warpmedia]

Whoops, thought that went to trash!

warpmedia wrote:

One simple question: How much did GL loose due to STW3 being pirated?
Answer, who cares he set a record at the box office for revenue anyway!

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[warpmedia]

One simple question: How much did GL loose due to STW3 being pirated?
Answer, who cares he set a record at the box office for revenue anyway!

If I'm a lazy apathetic ass who d/ls movies or waits watches on cable
(hbo, showtime, etc...) what money did they or do they stand to gain
from me in the first place? None, I wasn't going to the movies in the
1st place.

If I do buy a DVD and show 5 friends who never saw it and they never buy
it, how much does anyone loose? Technically they loose 5x the price
unless seeing it drives someone to buy it. Libraries lend out books &
music for free, where's the revenue stream in that?

Get over it people copyright and phantom proffits lost are BS where the
enough people paying for something to begin with to offset the
freeloaders. RIAA fears us becoming Russia or the Asian markets where no
one pays for anything. Not gonna happen if the record breaking proffits
likes STW3 are any indication of how many "legit" people shell out $10+
for a movie.

Don't make it legal, just go after people copying & CHARGING for pirated
movies which is a true lost sale and leave the leeches alone. After all
do you think if no one ever copied anything that prices would drop
(prices are high to offset piracy, right?) & proffits increase? No, but
WOULD proffits increase and still they would bitch about lost sales to
people who didn't want to see their controlled IP at any price.


Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 03:22 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

work deserves the same amount of protection from theft and 
exploitation that a purchaser of that work has. Is there anybody here 
who honestly thinks it should be legal to download a DVD copy for free 
that you would otherwise have to pay for? Nonsense.



Conversely, does anyone here think it's reasonable that someone should 
be able to charge $30 for a DVD?  I doubt it.  And the argument, "if you 
don't want to pay, don't buy" doesn't cut it.  There's no competition on 
movie ticket and DVD prices, so the consumer gets what price the 
industry fixes.  Find another industry where that's the norm.


People are using P2P to avoid what they consider to be over inflated 
prices.  Does that make it right?  Maybe not, but it's probably just as 
right as any rebellion against what is seen as an unfair regime.


T

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

Just so folks don't think I'm a wacko commie here's my perspective again - 
I believe copyright protection is a privelege granted by the
Constitution and regulated by congress to the producers of scientific
or artistic works.  The founders did this to compensate those
producers for their work and to foster innovation in whatever areas
that had a need but to also allow original works to at some point be
built upon.  It is a privilege not a right, by definition, it has been
granted by the public to those producers so that both parties would
receive something of value.  To me, the current copyright and patent
laws only benefit the producers, or in the case of movies and music
the distributors, leaving the public with an empty shell of a culture
that essentially helped bring down the Berlin Wall.  The Constitution
stated a limited time for copyright, that has been warped the past 20
years by ever increasing lobbying and overly excessive copyright
enforcement and penalties, those RIAA victims probably would have
rather been arrested for stealing than copyright infringement.

Back to where we started - the Grokster ruling was vague and will only
cause more lawsuits, tie up the courts and kill innovation.  At least,
in the US.

Now for more coffee...

On 7/7/05, Wayne Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:24 PM 7/6/2005, Winterlight typed:
> >The only way the media industry are going to come out of this, is to
> >change their thinking, and come up with new ways to market old products.
> 
> There was a little local coffee shop that use to play audio CDs that she
> had purchased when a RIAA representative counted all the chairs while I was
> there & told the owner that she would have to pay $XXX.00 weekly to
> continue to playing the cds publicly in her coffee shop. She commented that
> it wasn't publicly since it was her little coffee shop & that the price
> they commanded would bankrupt her. She immediately stopped playing the cds
> that she had purchased & stopped buying cds entirely. From then on she only
> played the radio. Many of her clients had heard her cds & had gone out to
> buy their own copies but the RIAA representative didn't care about that
> when she brought up that fact. She complained that the price they wanted
> was more expensive than if she had bought each chair a cd. We all know that
> not every chair was filled from opening to close as well but I doubt the
> RIAA representative took that into effect either.
> 
> It's strong arm tactics like these that many people see that give them the
> feeling that it's ok to steal something from these guys. Believe me the
> coffee shop owner told everyone why she was no longer playing audio cds any
> more & then she had a sign made up that anyone could read as to why & there
> was nothing the RIAA could do about her putting that sign up in her shop
> because it was 100% the truth.
> 
> 
> --+--
> Wayne D. Johnson
> Ashland, OH, USA 44805
> 
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Wayne Johnson]

At 08:24 PM 7/6/2005, Winterlight typed:
The only way the media industry are going to come out of this, is to 
change their thinking, and come up with new ways to market old products.


There was a little local coffee shop that use to play audio CDs that she 
had purchased when a RIAA representative counted all the chairs while I was 
there & told the owner that she would have to pay $XXX.00 weekly to 
continue to playing the cds publicly in her coffee shop. She commented that 
it wasn't publicly since it was her little coffee shop & that the price 
they commanded would bankrupt her. She immediately stopped playing the cds 
that she had purchased & stopped buying cds entirely. From then on she only 
played the radio. Many of her clients had heard her cds & had gone out to 
buy their own copies but the RIAA representative didn't care about that 
when she brought up that fact. She complained that the price they wanted 
was more expensive than if she had bought each chair a cd. We all know that 
not every chair was filled from opening to close as well but I doubt the 
RIAA representative took that into effect either.


It's strong arm tactics like these that many people see that give them the 
feeling that it's ok to steal something from these guys. Believe me the 
coffee shop owner told everyone why she was no longer playing audio cds any 
more & then she had a sign made up that anyone could read as to why & there 
was nothing the RIAA could do about her putting that sign up in her shop 
because it was 100% the truth.



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805
 

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Winterlight]

Well put, I completely agree with you, however, in the end there is going 
to have to be some kind of middle ground. There is nothing really new 
happening here. The media industry has always been opposed to new 
technology going back to the player piano, the first real to real Ampex 
tape recorders, VHS recorders, you name it. They have sued, and fought 
every one of those innovations.


Remember 15 years ago when they went after small used CD sellers? That 
legal fight ended when they went after a national company = The Wherehouse 
sound Company, for selling used CDs in their stores. What! ... you can't 
even sell a used CD... a physical thing. They even had artists coming out 
and publicly saying it was wrong to sell used CDs. Seems petty now, because 
it was petty back then.


The media companies don't like anything that upsets the flow, and they will 
go after anyone who makes any little change, where they don't get paid. 
This is one reason why they have so little good will with the public.


But it is out of their hands now, not only because of the transferability 
of digital media, but more importantly, because they have no way, what so 
ever, to control this in places like China, or Russia. These countries will 
continue to look the other way while their populace steals all the 
innovations, and entertainment, of the west, because they want to join the 
modern world, and they can not afford to pay their way. And they know, and 
everyone else knows, that very little can be done to curtail them.


The only way the media industry are going to come out of this, is to change 
their thinking, and come up with new ways to market old products.



At 04:24 PM 7/6/2005, you wrote:

That's a ridiculous argument.  If he was priced out of the market, he could
have lowered his price to encourage sales (discounting).  But once his
product was free, he could not price-match with "free".   So priced out of
the market only applies if there is an effective price.  "Free" is not an
effective price.

Think of it this way:

Sony makes a great WEGA 60" screen.  Best Buy wants to sell it for $2,100.
So does everyone in town.  But Joe, out of the back of his white van, will
sell it to you for $210.  Sure, it's probably stolen, but it's the same damn
TV.  So, did Sony just price itself out of the market?  No.  They were
undercut by someone who stole the product and priced it below cost.

That's not competition, it's just thievery.  The same is true with cut DVDs,
etc. it's just easier to forgive because, hey, it's all "digital" and you
don't see any "hard product" being stolen.  But if Joe went into
blockbuster, shoved a bunch of discs under his coat and brought them out to
you for free.. you'd know for sure it's stealing.  But if he goes to his
house and uploads them via bittorrent or Grokster or whatever, suddenly,
everyone is OK with it.

CW

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Chris Reeves]

That's a ridiculous argument.  If he was priced out of the market, he could
have lowered his price to encourage sales (discounting).  But once his
product was free, he could not price-match with "free".   So priced out of
the market only applies if there is an effective price.  "Free" is not an
effective price.

Think of it this way:

Sony makes a great WEGA 60" screen.  Best Buy wants to sell it for $2,100.
So does everyone in town.  But Joe, out of the back of his white van, will
sell it to you for $210.  Sure, it's probably stolen, but it's the same damn
TV.  So, did Sony just price itself out of the market?  No.  They were
undercut by someone who stole the product and priced it below cost.  

That's not competition, it's just thievery.  The same is true with cut DVDs,
etc. it's just easier to forgive because, hey, it's all "digital" and you
don't see any "hard product" being stolen.  But if Joe went into
blockbuster, shoved a bunch of discs under his coat and brought them out to
you for free.. you'd know for sure it's stealing.  But if he goes to his
house and uploads them via bittorrent or Grokster or whatever, suddenly,
everyone is OK with it.

CW

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 2:13 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd.,
et al.

At 03:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
>So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on 
>his website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely 
>kills his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and 
>the sales of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to 
>make ends meet - this is not injustice?

Here's another thought on this:  Did he really lose $50,000 due to P2P, or 
was he priced out of the market and never would have sold enough to cover 
costs to begin with?  People blame business failures on all sorts of things 
- sometimes they're right, and sometimes it's just a scapegoat.  I'm not 
sure which it is in this case.

T 

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Chris Reeves]

You are, however, effectively preventing a sale by selling to your self for
free.  And the person distributing the copy is engaging in exactly what you
oppose.

I'll be honest, there are lots of products I have used that I did not buy..
though that list is growing smaller.   

When it comes to TV shows, I have a much harder time with the issue, as I
feel I've watched them once and paid for them by watching the commercials
(especially true of PBS programming and children's paid Non-for-profit
programming).

However, when it comes to movies, like software, it's effectively stealing,
no matter how I slice it.  I can't come up with another way to look at it.

As far as reverse engineering, I understand that as well.  I will openly
admit: I buy all the VeggieTales, but my children almost never have
possession of the originals, duplicates are fine and the originals stay
locked up.  Same is true of Disney films.  Destroy a few discs and you catch
on quick how costly it is vs. having your four year old destroy a "copy".  

But I completely understand the studios.. and for the most part, I tend to
agree with them.

CW

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:34 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd.,
et al.

At 03:09 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
>Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is stealing. 
>Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it is 
>you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of injustice.

No, it's downloading - keeping it or selling it might be stealing - but one 
would have to prove lost revenue to the original party.  But in either 
case, whether or not it was the "just" thing to do is always in 
question.  It would be illegal under the current laws of course, which is 
what I think you mean.

T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:52:10 -0300

At 04:45 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
However there is no difference in the level of injustice between my 
example and a filthy rich company that pollutes water and kills cute 
kittens who has the same thing happen to their video release. Wrong is 
wrong.


Yes it is.  And once again, you're it.  I realize the black and white 
world is probably very comforting and relaxing, but in the real world, 
everything requires thought and judgement.


I'm sorry, I dont see anything in this thread that justifies leeching of 
pirated works. Thought and judgement indeed.


I'm still arguing about the issue of justice.  Pirating from a "filthy rich 
company that pollutes water and kills cute kittens" should be seen as an 
act of justice.  What comes around goes around and all that.  Stealing from 
some guy who goes bankrupt would be injust.  Both would be illegal.


Two wrongs make a right?

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Christopher Fisk]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Thane Sherrington wrote:


What comes around goes around and all that.


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Christopher Fisk
--
Zoidberg: That's where I'm meeting Uncle Zoid for lunch to discuss my 
Hollywood dream. The next time you see me, don't be surprised if I've 
eaten.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 04:45 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
However there is no difference in the level of injustice between my 
example and a filthy rich company that pollutes water and kills cute 
kittens who has the same thing happen to their video release. Wrong is wrong.


Yes it is.  And once again, you're it.  I realize the black and white 
world is probably very comforting and relaxing, but in the real world, 
everything requires thought and judgement.


I'm sorry, I dont see anything in this thread that justifies leeching of 
pirated works. Thought and judgement indeed.


I'm still arguing about the issue of justice.  Pirating from a "filthy rich 
company that pollutes water and kills cute kittens" should be seen as an 
act of justice.  What comes around goes around and all that.  Stealing from 
some guy who goes bankrupt would be injust.  Both would be illegal.


I've discussed this to death - so I'm signing off.  Twas an enjoyable argument.

T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:34:37 -0300

At 04:21 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

However there is no difference in the level of injustice between my 
example and a filthy rich company that pollutes water and kills cute 
kittens who has the same thing happen to their video release. Wrong is 
wrong.


Yes it is.  And once again, you're it.  I realize the black and white world 
is probably very comforting and relaxing, but in the real world, everything 
requires thought and judgement.


I'm sorry, I dont see anything in this thread that justifies leeching of 
pirated works. Thought and judgement indeed.


Shades of grey are exactly the reason why there are inane laws like the DMCA 
act. Copyright works have had the ability to be protected by laws decades 
ago.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 04:25 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

Judging by the BT tracker statistics (amount of times the rip was 
downloaded) and prior sales of his series, yes I would say he lost close 
to that from P2P leeches.


But was he overpriced for his market?  Was there a market?  These are 
questions that may never be answered, but unless we can guess and answer, 
we can't really say if his business was killed by piracy.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 04:21 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

However there is no difference in the level of injustice between my 
example and a filthy rich company that pollutes water and kills cute 
kittens who has the same thing happen to their video release. Wrong is wrong.


Yes it is.  And once again, you're it.  I realize the black and white world 
is probably very comforting and relaxing, but in the real world, everything 
requires thought and judgement.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 04:17 PM 06/07/2005, Christopher Fisk wrote:
FWIW:  SOMEONE bought it at the price he was asking, in fact, by the way I 
read it he had a steady revenue stream.  Then the video appeared on P2P 
and it just "happened" to coincide with when sales stopped.


Very hard to compete with free.


I know.  I've done it before.  Only in my case, it was with free funded by 
my tax dollars.  Even more injust, in my opinion.  :)



I'm inclined to believe P2P killed the revenue of a niche market.  Problem 
with things like this is you go searching for something like it (likely 
advertising budget is nil) and find his website on google.  Link below it 
is the torrent/zip/ftp/whatever.


Which does the average person take?


Users are surprisingly clever when it comes to P2P.

T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:13:27 -0300

At 03:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on 
his website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely 
kills his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and 
the sales of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to 
make ends meet - this is not injustice?


Here's another thought on this:  Did he really lose $50,000 due to P2P, or 
was he priced out of the market and never would have sold enough to cover 
costs to begin with?  People blame business failures on all sorts of things 
- sometimes they're right, and sometimes it's just a scapegoat.  I'm not 
sure which it is in this case.


T


Judging by the BT tracker statistics (amount of times the rip was 
downloaded) and prior sales of his series, yes I would say he lost close to 
that from P2P leeches.

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Christopher Fisk]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

To realize just how stupid the DMCA is, buy using a green marker on certain 
copy-protected CDs to play properly, you are breaking the law.


Beyond that.  The company that MAKES the marker is breaking the law.


Christopher Fisk
--
BOFH Excuse #418:
Sysadmins busy fighting SPAM.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:07:17 -0300

At 03:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on 
his website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely 
kills his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and 
the sales of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to 
make ends meet - this is not injustice?


Yes, but as you point out - it is a specific case.  Justice is case by case 
- it can't be a blanket statement.  Surely you can understand that.



Sometimes moral-relativism is such a cowardly security blanket to hide in.


And we've reached name calling.  Now you've definitely convinced me.

T


So you agree that my example is injust.

However there is no difference in the level of injustice between my example 
and a filthy rich company that pollutes water and kills cute kittens who has 
the same thing happen to their video release. Wrong is wrong.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Christopher Fisk]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Thane Sherrington wrote:

Here's another thought on this:  Did he really lose $50,000 due to P2P, 
or was he priced out of the market and never would have sold enough to 
cover costs to begin with?



FWIW:  SOMEONE bought it at the price he was asking, in fact, by the way I 
read it he had a steady revenue stream.  Then the video appeared on P2P 
and it just "happened" to coincide with when sales stopped.


Very hard to compete with free.


People blame business failures on all sorts of things - sometimes 
they're right, and sometimes it's just a scapegoat.  I'm not sure which 
it is in this case.



I'm inclined to believe P2P killed the revenue of a niche market.  Problem 
with things like this is you go searching for something like it (likely 
advertising budget is nil) and find his website on google.  Link below it 
is the torrent/zip/ftp/whatever.


Which does the average person take?


Christopher Fisk
--
I'll get a bunch of monkeys, dress 'em up, and make 'em reenact the Civil
War!  Heh, heh, heh!
-- Homer Simpson, Homer the Great

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 04:11 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:


Actually it does. Wait 8 months and buy it for $5 at Wal-mart.


Doesn't happen here, unfortunately.  Wouldn't buy from Wal-mart for moral 
reasons anyway.  Shouldn't have to.


BTW, it does not cost 30 cents to make a DVD. It costs $100m to make a 
movie, and 30 cents to make the dvd copy of it.


Did you forget about the theatre ticket sales?  If not, maybe the problem 
is in cost controls (like overpaid actors) then.


Somehow I don't equate fat college kids downloading ROTS on bandwidth paid 
by my tax dollars because they are too lazy and cheap to spend 9 bucks 
with the resistance fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.


LOL!  Now that's something I can agree with.

T 

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

To realize just how stupid the DMCA is, buy using a green marker on certain 
copy-protected CDs to play properly, you are breaking the law.



From: "Neil Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "'The Hardware List'" 
Subject: RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:45 +0100

I'll put in a lame 'me too' on that opinion :)

>From what I've heard I'm a little more fortunate as I'm in the UK and the
recording/movie industry isn't quite as controlling. For instance I've not
paid full price for a CD or DVD for years. Most of my purchases are from
online vendors offering up to 40% reductions on the recommended prices.
Pretty much the rest of my media purchases is from stored doing special
offers or multi-buy offers (these are incidentally paid for by either the
distributor or record company - that's why record stores have almost
identical titles for very similar prices).

I don't have a problem with buying things, I just have a problem with
companies jumping all over my fair use rights. I only have one set of eyes
and ears, even if I make a *personal* copy of a disk, I can only use one
copy at a time.

It also p*sses me off that many copy protected disks do not work in my car
CD player (The VW Golf head unit is strict Red Book and is well known for
it's hatred of non standard disks :)


> I agree with you. However the studio's right to protect their
> works ends where my rights to copy, reverse engineer, modify,
> whatever begins.
>
> I am anti-DRM.
>
>
>
> > No argument here. Look it's really simple folks - I am pro-property
> > and pro-privacy. I really do not understand why I am in the
> minority
> > here. A person should be able to do whatever he damn well
> feels like
> > with a purchased media copy within the confines of his home. Make
> > copies, reverse engineer, modify, whatever. It's your privacy, its
> > your property, it's your right. However you need to also understand
> > the author/distributor's work is also their property and
> their means
> > of making a living. Their work deserves the same amount of
> protection
> > from theft and exploitation that a purchaser of that work has. Is
> > there anybody here w

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

I would never pay $30 for a DVD.

Remember back when VHS movies were $80? Pricing will continue to drop, the 
average DVD new release is now $19, sometimes cheaper if you price search.


HD-DVD discs will undoubtably be over $40 range when first out. I'll pass... 
first give me HD sets that will display full resolution of HD content (hint: 
most don't).



From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. 
Grokster,	Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:53:31 -0400

For a $30 DVD it had better have some really good bonus features, 
interviews, etc.


If it's the plain movie, then no. If there is some value added above and 
beyond the movie itself, then yes.


Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 03:22 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

work deserves the same amount of protection from theft and exploitation 
that a purchaser of that work has. Is there anybody here who honestly 
thinks it should be legal to download a DVD copy for free that you would 
otherwise have to pay for? Nonsense.



Conversely, does anyone here think it's reasonable that someone should be 
able to charge $30 for a DVD?  I doubt it.  And the argument, "if you 
don't want to pay, don't buy" doesn't cut it.  There's no competition on 
movie ticket and DVD prices, so the consumer gets what price the industry 
fixes.  Find another industry where that's the norm.


People are using P2P to avoid what they consider to be over inflated 
prices.  Does that make it right?  Maybe not, but it's probably just as 
right as any rebellion against what is seen as an unfair regime.


T

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on 
his website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely 
kills his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and 
the sales of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to 
make ends meet - this is not injustice?


Here's another thought on this:  Did he really lose $50,000 due to P2P, or 
was he priced out of the market and never would have sold enough to cover 
costs to begin with?  People blame business failures on all sorts of things 
- sometimes they're right, and sometimes it's just a scapegoat.  I'm not 
sure which it is in this case.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:47:28 -0300

At 03:22 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
work deserves the same amount of protection from theft and exploitation 
that a purchaser of that work has. Is there anybody here who honestly 
thinks it should be legal to download a DVD copy for free that you would 
otherwise have to pay for? Nonsense.


Conversely, does anyone here think it's reasonable that someone should be 
able to charge $30 for a DVD?  I doubt it.  And the argument, "if you don't 
want to pay, don't buy" doesn't cut it.


Actually it does. Wait 8 months and buy it for $5 at Wal-mart.

BTW, it does not cost 30 cents to make a DVD. It costs $100m to make a 
movie, and 30 cents to make the dvd copy of it.


There's no competition on movie ticket and DVD prices, so the consumer gets 
what price the industry fixes.  Find another industry where that's the 
norm.


You are right on theaters. Which is why I dont go, I have a better system at 
home. Once the film goes to DVD however, you have plenty of choices on how 
to view it legally. P2P is not one of them. You can pricesearch it out on 
various vendors, rent it, or wait a while to get it in the discount bin.


People are using P2P to avoid what they consider to be over inflated 
prices.  Does that make it right?  Maybe not, but it's probably just as 
right as any rebellion against what is seen as an unfair regime.


Somehow I don't equate fat college kids downloading ROTS on bandwidth paid 
by my tax dollars because they are too lazy and cheap to spend 9 bucks with 
the resistance fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on 
his website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely 
kills his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and 
the sales of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to 
make ends meet - this is not injustice?


Yes, but as you point out - it is a specific case.  Justice is case by case 
- it can't be a blanket statement.  Surely you can understand that.



Sometimes moral-relativism is such a cowardly security blanket to hide in.


And we've reached name calling.  Now you've definitely convinced me.

T 

RE: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Neil Davidson]

I'll put in a lame 'me too' on that opinion :)

>From what I've heard I'm a little more fortunate as I'm in the UK and the
recording/movie industry isn't quite as controlling. For instance I've not
paid full price for a CD or DVD for years. Most of my purchases are from
online vendors offering up to 40% reductions on the recommended prices.
Pretty much the rest of my media purchases is from stored doing special
offers or multi-buy offers (these are incidentally paid for by either the
distributor or record company - that's why record stores have almost
identical titles for very similar prices).

I don't have a problem with buying things, I just have a problem with
companies jumping all over my fair use rights. I only have one set of eyes
and ears, even if I make a *personal* copy of a disk, I can only use one
copy at a time.

It also p*sses me off that many copy protected disks do not work in my car
CD player (The VW Golf head unit is strict Red Book and is well known for
it's hatred of non standard disks :)


> I agree with you. However the studio's right to protect their 
> works ends where my rights to copy, reverse engineer, modify, 
> whatever begins.
> 
> I am anti-DRM.
> 
> 
> 
> > No argument here. Look it's really simple folks - I am pro-property 
> > and pro-privacy. I really do not understand why I am in the 
> minority 
> > here. A person should be able to do whatever he damn well 
> feels like 
> > with a purchased media copy within the confines of his home. Make 
> > copies, reverse engineer, modify, whatever. It's your privacy, its 
> > your property, it's your right. However you need to also understand 
> > the author/distributor's work is also their property and 
> their means 
> > of making a living. Their work deserves the same amount of 
> protection 
> > from theft and exploitation that a purchaser of that work has. Is 
> > there anybody here w

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

"fair use"

It should be. Provided they are for private use and not for a P2P community.



From: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,The Hardware List 


To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:25:17 -0400

So it IS ok to copy copyright works?

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: The Hardware List 
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,
> >Ltd.,et al.
> >Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:27:56 -0400
> >
> >I think what he's getting at is downloading a TV show from the internet
> >that he did *NOT* record himself, but could have. Is that illegal?
>
> Yes. You see that warning on every single network broadcast? It states 
this
> program may not be publically broadcast without consent of X network. 
The

> reason being is this; networks broadcast their content without charging
> their viewers to watch on the condition that the commercial ad revenue 
will
> keep them in business. Sharing commercial-ripped unauthorized 
reproductions

> naturally will anger the TV network.
>
> I however dont see what is so terrible in sharing network TV programming 
in
> its entirety, complete with the commercials in place. Sure, home users 
have

> ways to eliminate watching the ads, but as long as the uploader includes
> them, I dont see how this is unethical in regards to copyrights. This
> applies to network TV, obviously not HBO or what not.
>
> Sharing of broadcast TV is indeed a grey area. If everybody found ways 
to
> defeat the viewing of ads (either by Tivo, or downloading ripped 
content),

> what will result are ads placed within scenes of your favorite TV show
> (which I find more annoying).
>
>
>


--
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

So a man who spends $50,000 to create an instructional video to sell on his 
website all of the sudden has his video is put on p2p and completely kills 
his sales (as evidenced by downloads from various BT trackers and the sales 
of prior video releases), forcing him to mortgage his house to make ends 
meet - this is not injustice?


Mind you this is not a theoretical scenario, this happened. The video in 
question is a mixed-martial arts training program.


Sometimes moral-relativism is such a cowardly security blanket to hide in.


From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:34:04 -0300

At 03:09 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is stealing. 
Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it is 
you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of 
injustice.


No, it's downloading - keeping it or selling it might be stealing - but one 
would have to prove lost revenue to the original party.  But in either 
case, whether or not it was the "just" thing to do is always in question.  
It would be illegal under the current laws of course, which is what I think 
you mean.


T

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:53 PM 06/07/2005, Ben Ruset wrote:
For a $30 DVD it had better have some really good bonus features, 
interviews, etc.


Remember I'm speaking Canadian. :)

If it's the plain movie, then no. If there is some value added above and 
beyond the movie itself, then yes.


But when does one have the choice?  Never.  It's a done deal that a DVD 
comes out at about $30, with a lot of extras that 99% of people have no 
need for.


Where is the $5 to $10 "just the move version?"

T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

Well if you insist that other people's property (intellectual or physical) 
should be universally shared, there's an island 90 miles south of florida 
that shares your ideology.



From: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,The Hardware List 


To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:29:08 -0400

no no no - it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement

justice, in practice, is not simple - it usually depends on which side 
you're on


On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: The Hardware List 
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. 
Grokster,Ltd.,

> >et al.
> >Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:39:27 -0300
> >
> >At 02:25 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
> >
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice
> >>
> >>in·jus·tice  n.
> >>Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
> >>A specific unjust act; a wrong.
> >>
> >>Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a
> >>violation of another's rights.
> >
> >You're misunderstanding the definition.  You're also misunderstanding
> >rights, but I don't want to get into that. :)
> >
> >T
>
> Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is 
stealing.
> Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it 
is
> you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of 
injustice.

>
>
>


--
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Ben Ruset]

For a $30 DVD it had better have some really good bonus features, 
interviews, etc.


If it's the plain movie, then no. If there is some value added above and 
beyond the movie itself, then yes.


Thane Sherrington wrote:

At 03:22 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

work deserves the same amount of protection from theft and 
exploitation that a purchaser of that work has. Is there anybody here 
who honestly thinks it should be legal to download a DVD copy for free 
that you would otherwise have to pay for? Nonsense.



Conversely, does anyone here think it's reasonable that someone should 
be able to charge $30 for a DVD?  I doubt it.  And the argument, "if you 
don't want to pay, don't buy" doesn't cut it.  There's no competition on 
movie ticket and DVD prices, so the consumer gets what price the 
industry fixes.  Find another industry where that's the norm.


People are using P2P to avoid what they consider to be over inflated 
prices.  Does that make it right?  Maybe not, but it's probably just as 
right as any rebellion against what is seen as an unfair regime.


T

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:29 PM 06/07/2005, j m g wrote:

no no no - it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement

justice, in practice, is not simple - it usually depends on which side 
you're on


Thanks.  A voice of reason.

T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:22 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
work deserves the same amount of protection from theft and exploitation 
that a purchaser of that work has. Is there anybody here who honestly 
thinks it should be legal to download a DVD copy for free that you would 
otherwise have to pay for? Nonsense.


Conversely, does anyone here think it's reasonable that someone should be 
able to charge $30 for a DVD?  I doubt it.  And the argument, "if you don't 
want to pay, don't buy" doesn't cut it.  There's no competition on movie 
ticket and DVD prices, so the consumer gets what price the industry 
fixes.  Find another industry where that's the norm.


People are using P2P to avoid what they consider to be over inflated 
prices.  Does that make it right?  Maybe not, but it's probably just as 
right as any rebellion against what is seen as an unfair regime.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 03:09 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is stealing. 
Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it is 
you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of injustice.


No, it's downloading - keeping it or selling it might be stealing - but one 
would have to prove lost revenue to the original party.  But in either 
case, whether or not it was the "just" thing to do is always in 
question.  It would be illegal under the current laws of course, which is 
what I think you mean.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

no no no - it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement

justice, in practice, is not simple - it usually depends on which side you're on

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: The Hardware List 
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd.,
> >et al.
> >Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:39:27 -0300
> >
> >At 02:25 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
> >
> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice
> >>
> >>in·jus·tice  n.
> >>Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
> >>A specific unjust act; a wrong.
> >>
> >>Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a
> >>violation of another's rights.
> >
> >You're misunderstanding the definition.  You're also misunderstanding
> >rights, but I don't want to get into that. :)
> >
> >T
> 
> Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is stealing.
> Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it is
> you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of injustice.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Ben Ruset]

I agree with you. However the studio's right to protect their works ends 
where my rights to copy, reverse engineer, modify, whatever begins.


I am anti-DRM.



No argument here. Look it's really simple folks - I am pro-property and 
pro-privacy. I really do not understand why I am in the minority here. A 
person should be able to do whatever he damn well feels like with a 
purchased media copy within the confines of his home. Make copies, 
reverse engineer, modify, whatever. It's your privacy, its your 
property, it's your right. However you need to also understand the 
author/distributor's work is also their property and their means of 
making a living. Their work deserves the same amount of protection from 
theft and exploitation that a purchaser of that work has. Is there 
anybody here w

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

So it IS ok to copy copyright works?

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: The Hardware List 
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,
> >Ltd.,et al.
> >Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:27:56 -0400
> >
> >I think what he's getting at is downloading a TV show from the internet
> >that he did *NOT* record himself, but could have. Is that illegal?
> 
> Yes. You see that warning on every single network broadcast? It states this
> program may not be publically broadcast without consent of X network. The
> reason being is this; networks broadcast their content without charging
> their viewers to watch on the condition that the commercial ad revenue will
> keep them in business. Sharing commercial-ripped unauthorized reproductions
> naturally will anger the TV network.
> 
> I however dont see what is so terrible in sharing network TV programming in
> its entirety, complete with the commercials in place. Sure, home users have
> ways to eliminate watching the ads, but as long as the uploader includes
> them, I dont see how this is unethical in regards to copyrights. This
> applies to network TV, obviously not HBO or what not.
> 
> Sharing of broadcast TV is indeed a grey area. If everybody found ways to
> defeat the viewing of ads (either by Tivo, or downloading ripped content),
> what will result are ads placed within scenes of your favorite TV show
> (which I find more annoying).
> 
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,The Hardware List 


To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:52:43 -0400

Then how come none of the bittorrent, RIAA, etc lawsuits are charging
anyone with stealing?


They are charged with copyright infringement. It can not be technically 
called theft in a courtroom because you are not stealing a boxed copy from a 
store or downloading and then removing the master or source code. In the 
real world, it is obvious theft of the author's livelyhood (no matter how 
rich or poor, good or evil).



And I'd argue that the injustice occurs on the public's right to copy...


No argument here. Look it's really simple folks - I am pro-property and 
pro-privacy. I really do not understand why I am in the minority here. A 
person should be able to do whatever he damn well feels like with a 
purchased media copy within the confines of his home. Make copies, reverse 
engineer, modify, whatever. It's your privacy, its your property, it's your 
right. However you need to also understand the author/distributor's work is 
also their property and their means of making a living. Their work deserves 
the same amount of protection from theft and exploitation that a purchaser 
of that work has. Is there anybody here who honestly thinks it should be 
legal to download a DVD copy for free that you would otherwise have to pay 
for? Nonsense.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,The Hardware List 


To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:52:43 -0400

Then how come none of the bittorrent, RIAA, etc lawsuits are charging
anyone with stealing?


They are charged with copyright infringement. It can not be technically 
called theft in a courtroom because you are not stealing a boxed copy from a 
store or downloading and then removing the master or source code. In the 
real world, it is obvious theft of the author's livelyhood (no matter how 
rich or poor, good or evil).



And I'd argue that the injustice occurs on the public's right to copy...


No argument here. Look it's really simple folks - I am pro-property and 
pro-privacy. I really do not understand why I am in the minority here. A 
person should be able to do whatever he damn well feels like with a 
purchased media copy within the confines of his home. Make copies, reverse 
engineer, modify, whatever. It's your privacy, its your property, it's your 
right. However you need to also understand the author/distributor's work is 
also their property and their means of making a living. Their work deserves 
the same amount of protection from theft and exploitation that a purchaser 
of that work has. Is there anybody here w

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:39:27 -0300

At 02:25 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice

in·jus·tice  n.
Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
A specific unjust act; a wrong.

Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a 
violation of another's rights.


You're misunderstanding the definition.  You're also misunderstanding 
rights, but I don't want to get into that. :)


T


Downloading a ISO copy of a DVD movie you have not purchased is stealing. 
Stealing is universally wrong and punishable the world over. I think it is 
you that is misunderstanding the incredibly simple definition of injustice.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:27:56 -0400

I think what he's getting at is downloading a TV show from the internet 
that he did *NOT* record himself, but could have. Is that illegal?


Yes. You see that warning on every single network broadcast? It states this 
program may not be publically broadcast without consent of X network. The 
reason being is this; networks broadcast their content without charging 
their viewers to watch on the condition that the commercial ad revenue will 
keep them in business. Sharing commercial-ripped unauthorized reproductions 
naturally will anger the TV network.


I however dont see what is so terrible in sharing network TV programming in 
its entirety, complete with the commercials in place. Sure, home users have 
ways to eliminate watching the ads, but as long as the uploader includes 
them, I dont see how this is unethical in regards to copyrights. This 
applies to network TV, obviously not HBO or what not.


Sharing of broadcast TV is indeed a grey area. If everybody found ways to 
defeat the viewing of ads (either by Tivo, or downloading ripped content), 
what will result are ads placed within scenes of your favorite TV show 
(which I find more annoying).

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

Then how come none of the bittorrent, RIAA, etc lawsuits are charging
anyone with stealing?

And I'd argue that the injustice occurs on the public's right to copy...

We can go back and forth on this, maybe I just have loose morals. 
Anyone want to start a decriminalizing drugs thread while we're at it?

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: The Hardware List 
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd.,
> >et al.
> >Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:48:40 -0300
> >
> >At 01:42 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
> >
> >>That's what demo software is for. Fully working demo software is available
> >>for just about any kind of app today. These days, acquiring a pirated
> >>version is growing harder to legitimize with the try-before-buy defense.
> >
> >Except that the demos I've tried are often either crippled or buggy.  Often
> >it's like taking a test drive in the same model car, but from a previous
> >year.
> >
> >Anyway, my point was just that you were using the term "injustice"
> >incorrectly.  I don't really care about your opinion on actual P2P - unless
> >you have some new arguments pro or con, which I doubt, because I think
> >they've all been hashed out to death.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice
> 
> in·jus·tice  n.
> Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
> A specific unjust act; a wrong.
> 
> Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a violation
> of another's rights.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 02:25 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice

in·jus·tice  n.
Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
A specific unjust act; a wrong.

Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a 
violation of another's rights.


You're misunderstanding the definition.  You're also misunderstanding 
rights, but I don't want to get into that. :)


T

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Christopher Fisk]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Ben Ruset wrote:

I think what he's getting at is downloading a TV show from the internet that 
he did *NOT* record himself, but could have. Is that illegal?


Just send the broadcasting company a zero dollar check to pay for your 
rights to view the show.  It's 10x the cost of recording it yourself, but 
you do have the convenience of being able to get it after it aired.



Christopher Fisk
--
"I don't understand this!  Not a single part of my horoscope came true! 
...  The paper should print Mom's daily predictions.  Those sure come 
true."	-Calvin

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Ben Ruset]

I think what he's getting at is downloading a TV show from the internet 
that he did *NOT* record himself, but could have. Is that illegal?




Hayes Elkins wrote:



You record an authorized broadcast from your TV for personal use - that 
is legal.


Renting a DVD, copying it to your hard drive, and then sharing the ISO 
for millions to leech is illegal. Downloading said ISO is illegal.


Is this so difficult to understand?

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:48:40 -0300

At 01:42 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

That's what demo software is for. Fully working demo software is available 
for just about any kind of app today. These days, acquiring a pirated 
version is growing harder to legitimize with the try-before-buy defense.


Except that the demos I've tried are often either crippled or buggy.  Often 
it's like taking a test drive in the same model car, but from a previous 
year.


Anyway, my point was just that you were using the term "injustice" 
incorrectly.  I don't really care about your opinion on actual P2P - unless 
you have some new arguments pro or con, which I doubt, because I think 
they've all been hashed out to death.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=injustice

in·jus·tice  n.
Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice.
A specific unjust act; a wrong.

Last I checked, stealing is wrong and stealing a pirated work is a violation 
of another's rights.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,The Hardware List 


To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:44:32 -0400

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly did the Grokster advertisements state? If it was something 
so

> blatantly stupid like "download our client to get free pirated movies
> instead of paying for them" then boo hoo, capitalistic darwinism strikes
> again.
>
> At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% 
of


So what, what difference my recording off TV or downloading off the
Internet?  An injustice?   Please, the Constitution (Article 1, Clause
8) states for a LIMITED time.  Last I looked, Steamboat Willy is yet
to enter the public domain,  legislation is also being looked at to
extend copyright out past it's current 95 years or life plus 70, the
public good and innovation are certainly not being served.  Please,
the media companies certainly do not need your sympathy for abducting
our culture.


You record an authorized broadcast from your TV for personal use - that is 
legal.


Renting a DVD, copying it to your hard drive, and then sharing the ISO for 
millions to leech is illegal. Downloading said ISO is illegal.


Is this so difficult to understand?

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 01:42 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

That's what demo software is for. Fully working demo software is available 
for just about any kind of app today. These days, acquiring a pirated 
version is growing harder to legitimize with the try-before-buy defense.


Except that the demos I've tried are often either crippled or buggy.  Often 
it's like taking a test drive in the same model car, but from a previous 
year.


Anyway, my point was just that you were using the term "injustice" 
incorrectly.  I don't really care about your opinion on actual P2P - unless 
you have some new arguments pro or con, which I doubt, because I think 
they've all been hashed out to death.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 12:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% of 
what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is 
an injustice, no matter how evil you


No, it's not an injustice (unless you actually think the "justice system" 
actually pertains to real justice.)  It's illegal under the current 
laws.  There's a big difference.  One could also argue that movie ticket 
and DVD sales prices are virtually price fixing and are protected by a 
monopolistic setup, both of which are also illegal.  Nobody mentions that much.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

On 7/6/05, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly did the Grokster advertisements state? If it was something so
> blatantly stupid like "download our client to get free pirated movies
> instead of paying for them" then boo hoo, capitalistic darwinism strikes
> again.
> 
> At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% of

So what, what difference my recording off TV or downloading off the
Internet?  An injustice?   Please, the Constitution (Article 1, Clause
8) states for a LIMITED time.  Last I looked, Steamboat Willy is yet
to enter the public domain,  legislation is also being looked at to
extend copyright out past it's current 95 years or life plus 70, the
public good and innovation are certainly not being served.  Please,
the media companies certainly do not need your sympathy for abducting
our culture.

> what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is an
> injustice, no matter how evil you percieve the music/movie industries. P2P
> software will always be around but companies that are dumb enough to
> instruct you on how to acquire pirated media deserve zero sympathy.
> 
> Should gun companies be allowed to show how to use a firearm to rob a bank?

No, but gun companies aren't being sued for producing the facilitating
technology.

> (The 0-60 comparison post is way off the mark)

Not necessarily, downloading, like speeding are both laws that a
broken daily by people who don't really think they're doing anything
wrong, they do it because they can and, with the advent of p2p and
broadband, also do it because it's easy.

> 
> >From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Hardware List
> >
> >Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,
> >Ltd.,et al.
> >Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:46:01 -0400
> >
> >They should just sue the internet for making it easy to pirate movies.
> >
> >I wish people would stop going to the movies and stop buying music in
> >response to these stupid lawsuits. Ultimately, fair-use rights are going to
> >be eliminated, and we'll all be forced to live in a safe, happy DRM land,
> >where the thought police kill you if you press the "record" button when
> >you're not allowed to.
> >
> >j m g wrote:
> >>But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
> >>the first place.  They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
> >>decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
> >>software vendors.
> >>
> >>My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
> >>reckless driving?  Can they be sued for it?
> >>
> >>What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
> >>responsibility.  A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
> >>projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
> >>fears.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:36:04 -0300

At 01:30 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

No, it's not an injustice (unless you actually think the "justice system" 
actually pertains to real justice.)  It's illegal under the current laws.


Downloading pirated software is, and always will be, theft.


Which makes it illegal, and possibly unjust, but injustice depends on the 
circumstances.  Downloading a full version of a piece of software to test 
it out and then either buying or deleting isn't unjust.  It just makes 
sense.  It is, unfortunately, illegal.


T


That's what demo software is for. Fully working demo software is available 
for just about any kind of app today. These days, acquiring a pirated 
version is growing harder to legitimize with the try-before-buy defense.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Thane Sherrington]

At 01:30 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:

No, it's not an injustice (unless you actually think the "justice system" 
actually pertains to real justice.)  It's illegal under the current laws.


Downloading pirated software is, and always will be, theft.


Which makes it illegal, and possibly unjust, but injustice depends on the 
circumstances.  Downloading a full version of a piece of software to test 
it out and then either buying or deleting isn't unjust.  It just makes 
sense.  It is, unfortunately, illegal.


T 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

From: Thane Sherrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,Ltd., 
et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:26:12 -0300

At 12:59 PM 06/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% of 
what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is 
an injustice, no matter how evil you


No, it's not an injustice (unless you actually think the "justice system" 
actually pertains to real justice.)  It's illegal under the current laws.


Downloading pirated software is, and always will be, theft.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

On a related note, here is some humor for all:


From here

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pirated+movies

to here
http://www.ezmovies.net/?hop=tl1movies

to here
http://www.eff.org/share/

to here
http://www.eff.org/share/?f=compensation.html

Play with fire

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

Looking further - where exactly does MGM believe that Grokster is 
encouraging theft?


http://web.archive.org/web/20010608102522/www.grokster.com/policies.html 
(this is the earliest archive I could find of theirs) Maybe their partner 
advertisers were the ones who pushed the evelope in spam emails?



From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:59:17 -0400

What exactly did the Grokster advertisements state? If it was something so 
blatantly stupid like "download our client to get free pirated movies 
instead of paying for them" then boo hoo, capitalistic darwinism strikes 
again.


At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% of 
what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is 
an injustice, no matter how evil you percieve the music/movie industries. 
P2P software will always be around but companies that are dumb enough to 
instruct you on how to acquire pirated media deserve zero sympathy.


Should gun companies be allowed to show how to use a firearm to rob a bank? 
(The 0-60 comparison post is way off the mark)

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Hayes Elkins]

What exactly did the Grokster advertisements state? If it was something so 
blatantly stupid like "download our client to get free pirated movies 
instead of paying for them" then boo hoo, capitalistic darwinism strikes 
again.


At some point people here need to realize that 99.999% of 
what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is an 
injustice, no matter how evil you percieve the music/movie industries. P2P 
software will always be around but companies that are dumb enough to 
instruct you on how to acquire pirated media deserve zero sympathy.


Should gun companies be allowed to show how to use a firearm to rob a bank? 
(The 0-60 comparison post is way off the mark)



From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Hardware List 

Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, 
Ltd.,et al.

Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:46:01 -0400

They should just sue the internet for making it easy to pirate movies.

I wish people would stop going to the movies and stop buying music in 
response to these stupid lawsuits. Ultimately, fair-use rights are going to 
be eliminated, and we'll all be forced to live in a safe, happy DRM land, 
where the thought police kill you if you press the "record" button when 
you're not allowed to.


j m g wrote:

But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
the first place.  They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
software vendors.

My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
reckless driving?  Can they be sued for it?

What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
responsibility.  A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
fears.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Analyst]

On 5 Jul 2005 at 12:24, G.Waleed Kavalec wrote:

> Next time somebody kills their spouse with a hammer, the next of kin
> should sue Sears.

Only if Sears was "promoting" the illegal use of the hammer.



> On 7/5/05, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
> > the first place. They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
> > decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware
> > or software vendors.
> > 
> > My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
> > reckless driving? Can they be sued for it?

I'm sure if you checked the fine print, they state somewhere that you must be 
within legal speed limits.


The bottom line of this ruling is they have to be "promoting" the illegal use 
of their product. Check the disclaimer that Grokster makes you agree to before 
commencing use.

Imagine a hotel that advertised that if you rented one of their rooms, it was 
perfectly OK with management if you used the room to traffic in illegal 
firearms. I imagine they would 
be subject to prosecution for aiding and abetting.


Vince

 

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Ben Ruset]

They should just sue the internet for making it easy to pirate movies.

I wish people would stop going to the movies and stop buying music in 
response to these stupid lawsuits. Ultimately, fair-use rights are going 
to be eliminated, and we'll all be forced to live in a safe, happy DRM 
land, where the thought police kill you if you press the "record" button 
when you're not allowed to.


j m g wrote:

But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
the first place.  They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
software vendors.

My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
reckless driving?  Can they be sued for it?

What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
responsibility.  A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
fears.

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[G.Waleed Kavalec]

Next time somebody kills their spouse with a hammer, the next of kin should sue Sears.
On 7/5/05, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits inthe first place.  They've opened the door to folks to let the courtsdecide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware orsoftware vendors.
My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promotingreckless driving?  Can they be sued for it?What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their ownresponsibility.  A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigationfears.On 7/5/05, Robert Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>  From The Washington Post:
>> In> Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer> Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., the Court held that Grokster
> could be sued by MGM and other entertainment industry firms for its> creation of a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. That's not because> Grokster's software could be used for downloading movies and music, nor
> because Grokster's software was being used for that purpose, nor even> because the Groksterites intended that use.>> The difference here, Justice David Souter wrote for a 9-0 majority, was
> that Grokster advertised itself as a way to get movies and music without> paying. To quote> Souter's> opinion: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use> to infringe copyright, as shown by clear _expression_ or other affirmative> steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of
> infringement by third parties.">> This is a somewhat fine distinction that seems to have gotten lost in some> we're-all-gonna-die! analysis. The ruling does not throw people in jail for
> making hardware or software that could be used to share copyrighted works.> It does not require the developers of hardware and software to act as> copyright cops.>> The ruling makes this clear on page 19: "Mere knowledge of infringing
> potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject> a distributor to liability," and in footnote 12 on page 22: "In the absence> of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory
> infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps> to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial> noninfringing uses.">>
>> Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada>>---jmgChaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]--  
G. Waleed Kavalec  http://www.IslamAwakened.com/QuranAuozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem

Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[j m g]

But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
the first place.  They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
software vendors.

My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
reckless driving?  Can they be sued for it?

What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
responsibility.  A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
fears.

On 7/5/05, Robert Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  From The Washington Post:
> 
> In
> Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
> Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., the Court held that Grokster
> could be sued by MGM and other entertainment industry firms for its
> creation of a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. That's not because
> Grokster's software could be used for downloading movies and music, nor
> because Grokster's software was being used for that purpose, nor even
> because the Groksterites intended that use.
> 
> The difference here, Justice David Souter wrote for a 9-0 majority, was
> that Grokster advertised itself as a way to get movies and music without
> paying. To quote
> Souter's
> opinion: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use
> to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative
> steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of
> infringement by third parties."
> 
> This is a somewhat fine distinction that seems to have gotten lost in some
> we're-all-gonna-die! analysis. The ruling does not throw people in jail for
> making hardware or software that could be used to share copyrighted works.
> It does not require the developers of hardware and software to act as
> copyright cops.
> 
> The ruling makes this clear on page 19: "Mere knowledge of infringing
> potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject
> a distributor to liability," and in footnote 12 on page 22: "In the absence
> of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory
> infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps
> to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial
> noninfringing uses."
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
> 
> 


-- 
-jmg

Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]

[H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.

[Robert Turnbull]

From The Washington Post:

In 
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 
Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., the Court held that Grokster 
could be sued by MGM and other entertainment industry firms for its 
creation of a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. That's not because 
Grokster's software could be used for downloading movies and music, nor 
because Grokster's software was being used for that purpose, nor even 
because the Groksterites intended that use.


The difference here, Justice David Souter wrote for a 9-0 majority, was 
that Grokster advertised itself as a way to get movies and music without 
paying. To quote 
Souter's 
opinion: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use 
to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative 
steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of 
infringement by third parties."


This is a somewhat fine distinction that seems to have gotten lost in some 
we're-all-gonna-die! analysis. The ruling does not throw people in jail for 
making hardware or software that could be used to share copyrighted works. 
It does not require the developers of hardware and software to act as 
copyright cops.


The ruling makes this clear on page 19: "Mere knowledge of infringing 
potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject 
a distributor to liability," and in footnote 12 on page 22: "In the absence 
of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory 
infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps 
to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial 
noninfringing uses."




Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada