|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Jun 28 2005, 05:33 PM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | It doesn't change the Sony case, because Sony wasn't marketing their product in that manner. Apparently Grokster was, or so the Court found. |
fcc, i don't see how did sc cover itself in this one.
as i said here, i see it as a poor excuse/explanation.
"i also said it's a lousy excuse. advertising is not important.
look at all the freeware p2p programs. are they advertised?
are they saying "look at us, we can dload movies for you. hollywood movies! the sweet stuff!"?
(so they are breaking the law because they advertise, and those who do the same and don't advertise are ok?
see, it's just a silly excuse)"
ie. you will get infringment without any soliciting.
the word about good p2p programs spreads on the web all by itself. no need to advertise anything. programs that are mostly in use were not advertised at all. and grokster is just a company making shareware (or adware, or whatever).
http://grokster.com/
did they take down the blatant advertising already, and included copyright notice?
http://www.p2punited.org/copyright.php
dunno, i didn't used it.
(grokster is 6.15mb dload; something is telling me more than half of it is probably spayware or adware or such(?). and some IT companies were supporting this?)
as for sony not marketing copying; that wasn't what was it all about; it was about taping off-the-air programmes, not vcr-vcr copying.
vcr-vcr copying is almost unwatchable quality anyway.
(kinda like crappy divx you now find on p2p...  )
"Respondents alleged that some individuals had
used Betamax video tape recorders (VTR's) to record some of respondents' copyrighted works which had
been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and contended that these individuals had thereby
infringed respondents' copyrights."
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_univ...l_decision.html
the thing is; in that time this was good for industry
(in that case excuse was timeshifting); now that the piracy got out of hands, sc has to (essentially) revert this decision. p2p is not that good for industry. i don't even see how is p2p good for internet providers, if most of them do subscription type offers, where you pay the same no matter how much you dload. if they were counting by the dloaded mb, i would get it.
on another notion, what is the usage (or even intention) of p2p other than music/video "sharing" (stealing)?
somebody over at ars mentioned home-movies.
not.
documents?
not.
programs?
not.(except for cracked ones, offcourse..hehe)
images?
not.
bootleg music and video?
hell yes!
so what's the primary purpose of p2p, somebody tell me.
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Jun 28 2005, 06:08 PM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
That you are asking these things strongly suggests that you haven't read the PDF of the decision, as most all of those questions were addressed by the court.
But I think it's less about advertising and more about intent. Intent is everything in the eyes of the law! Often, intent is the only difference between a deliberate act of murder and a terrible accident.
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Jun 28 2005, 10:19 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
the sole purpose (or the intent) of the p2p programs is to swap the bigger files.
bigger files are not the images, texts, programs or simillar.
we all know what the bigger files are.
so p2p as a whole has one intent.
wether you advertise it or not, that intent is the same.
i'm now reading the pdf and finding all the stuff i already said is there;
| QUOTE | Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct in-
fringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how
to engage in an infringing use, shows an affirmative intent that the
product be used to infringe, and overcomes the law’s reluctance to
find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product
suitable for some lawful use. |
as i said , p2p does not need any marketing, advertising or steps to encourage anything.
it is all happening by itself.
as i said, the whole body of evidence seems to be the advertising thing
here it is again;
| QUOTE | (d) On the record presented, respondents’ unlawful objective is un-
mistakable. The classic instance of inducement is by advertisement
or solicitation that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others
to commit violations. |
so you cannot say that intention of this particular service is to infringe the copyright, like you suggest on that doom9 thread.
as you said;
| QUOTE |
I'd still like to emphasize that neither P2P nor usenet were the actual targets in this case. The targets are those services which are blatantly soliciting people to infringe. |
you cannot say this, as the intention of whole p2p concept is to infringe.
not just one or two p2p services that did marketing.
do you say this killer is more guilty than the other just because he's bragging how he killed the man?
let's do a parallel;
one dealer has a sign that he's selling stolen goods at 1/3rd of the original price.
the other is doing the same without any marketing.
is the former dealer gulity, and latter is not?
this alone (again from pdf)
| QUOTE | We agree with MGM that the Court of Appeals misap-
plied Sony, which it read as limiting secondary liability
quite beyond the circumstances to which the case applied. |
shows that even the sc can't really pull out a coherent explanation why in this case sony doesn't apply.
you can read and re-read, but you will still want to apply sony here.
and now sc says no.
just because of "encouraging".
sony was equally encouraging not paying to hollywood for watching movies. sure it did.
the whole concept of vcr with a tuner means "not to pay but still watch".
so i guess philips should be sued; they've put tuner on the vcr)
| QUOTE | It is enough to note that the Ninth Circuit’s judg-
ment rested on an erroneous understanding of Sony and to
leave further consideration of the Sony rule for a day when
that may be required. |
so even the lower courts cannot understand what sc said?
well i say that even sc can't.
| QUOTE | The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose
occurs when one induces commission of infringement by
another, or “entic[es] or persuad[es] another” to infringe, |
this reminds of that discussion with cyberman where i asked am i guilty if i told you to kill somebody, or you (who did it) are.
again
| QUOTE | We adopt it here, holding that one who distrib-
utes a device with the object of promoting its use to in-
fringe 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 cannot be used, as there are plenty of non-advertised p2p programs that are used to dload illegal stuff. (these have more traffic than grokster)
how did sc tackle that one?
sc's case rests on advertising.
i say you cannot blame advertising.
you can blame the uploaders/downloaders and the whole p2p concept that is making it possible.
i didn't hear about napster from advertising. i heard it from a friend.
if you've found something in this pdf that addresses my point, please tell me where.
thanks.
(also i think they can do better than to spend 55pages babbling and repeating the same thing over and over...don't you think?)
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Jun 29 2005, 01:54 AM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
| QUOTE (i4004 @ Jun 28 2005, 06:19 PM) | | if you've found something in this pdf that addresses my point, please tell me where. |
I would, if I could understand your "point." Rather, you seem to be making several points which IMHO have little to do with the specific issue the court was asked to address. (I.e., can MGM sue Grokster and StreamCast for damages?)
You also seem to be suggesting that P2P technology itself is unlawful, and good for nothing but infringement. So do you want to ban P2P entirely? (You sound like Pamel in the Doom9 thread, who can't think of any lawful use for a VCR.)
| QUOTE | | (also i think they can do better than to spend 55pages babbling and repeating the same thing over and over...don't you think?) |
I hope you can too.
There's bound to be some repetition with 9 judges all wanting to voice their opinions. (Also note that even though their decision was unanimous, they didn't quite agree on some of the finer points.)
You know what else? I'm already tired of this discussion, and sorry I got involved. I really just wanted to point people to the PDF and urge them to read it. I didn't want to debate it, because I pretty much agree with the decision and I can't possibly express it any clearer than how it's written in the PDF.
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Jun 29 2005, 03:49 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
simple; i just said that i don't see how can sc use the "advertisement or solicitation" as an explanation on why grokster is breaking the law.
do you?
| QUOTE | | You also seem to be suggesting that P2P technology itself is unlawful, and good for nothing but infringement. So do you want to ban P2P entirely? (You sound like Pamel in the Doom9 thread, who can't think of any lawful use for a VCR.) |
anything that is aired on tv is copyrighted by someone, right?
did you ask anybody to copy their programme to your tape?
timeshifting doesn't really mater; it's just making my job easier. i can be sleeping(or even away) while getting the stuff i won't pay to view. and then i'll view it 10 times more if it's any good.
(btw. did you ever inquired at the tv-station on the prices when they record thier programmes on the vhs for you? well, i did. i was stunned! just like i'm stunned by the prices od cds and dvds. and they are quite clear that they can't copy the films etc for you.)
hell yes, i want p2p banned entirely (as i don't have dsl!) and i want vhs banned(as it has drop-outs!).
but seriously, you do see what are we saying: the laws are silly. they don't let you do anything.
if one is to follow the copyright law to the letter, then we are only allowed to buy the (too expensive) pre-recorded media from the stores.
the extremes me and pamel used are there to show how sc is inconsistent.
in sony they essentially encourage copyright infringment (and in favour of big electronics corporation), and today they discourage copyright infringment(in favour of hollywood).
you have noticed the good post by doobie where he points how things are drastically changed between sony and grokster cases.
one frees, the other opresses, and yet both cases are about the same thing; copyright infringment.
perhaps we can see it in such light;
in 1984 technology needs a push, a support. if hollywood won, it would be grim.
in 2005 technology is flying, and in some aspects it needs to slow down. if it continues with this tempo, things may be grim for hollywood.
it can generally be said that tv and internet are not really making hollywood's life any easier.
in 50's-60's they went for widescreen to battle tv, and now they are just dragging on the courts to battle web-piracy.
(but i have no worries about them. they won't go broke. they're just greedy.)
| QUOTE | | |
| QUOTE |
I'm already tired of this discussion, and sorry I got involved. |
come on, don't be a quitter.
(ok, you can quit on doom9; i know i did on ars.  )
i also agree with the decision....but i would be rather blunt in explaining it. sc has to use the finer methods of explaining their actions. and this time i say the explanation is not really adequate.
the decision is good, but explanation is not.
1984 decision was also good. explanation sucked then too.
i think their decisions are more based on "what is best for american economy in given time/circumstances" than on some absolute moral values etc.
they think vcrs did more good than harm (and that's true) and now they think p2p is doing more harm (and i agree).
[if somebody can show me how p2p is making more money and more jobs than hollywood, i'm all ears.]
this is a sad day for doom9, though.
what's the point of saying how p2p actually sells more media now? if this decision only served to silence him, it is justified!
i hope its clearer now.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
|
