Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
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.
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.
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 http://www.wavijo.com -- -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.
On a related note, here is some humor for all: From here http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: j m g [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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.
From: j m g [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: j m g [EMAIL PROTECTED],The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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 hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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.
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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 http://www.wavijo.com
[H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
From The Washington Post: In http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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 http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400Souter'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
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
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 http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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 http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400Souter'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]
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
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 http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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 http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400 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 Kavalechttp://www.IslamAwakened.com/QuranAuozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
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.
