File-sharing suffers major defeat
BBC - The US Supreme Court has ruled that file-sharing companies are to blame for what users do with their software. The Supreme Court judges were expected to rule in favour of the file-sharers because of legal precedents set when video recorders first appeared...
The judges in those lower courts cited a ruling made in 1984 over Sony's Betamax video recorder. In that case, the Supreme Court said that the majority of people using a video recorder for legal uses outweighed any illegal use of the technology. But in this latest ruling the judges sets aside this precedent and the lower court decisions and means the makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if they use it to break the law.
Hmmmm, interesting:
"the makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if they use it to break the law"
So, I guess starting tommorrow auto-matic weapons manufacturers will be writing out heaps of check to the families of all those who were killed by their products. Right? Right?...Hello?
I don't mean to split hairs, but what about the computer manufacturer? The file-sharer wouldn't be breaking the law without their help. And while we're at it, shouldn't they be responsible to make sure that their customers aren't downloading child porn?
When Earl gets drunk and bludgens his wife are we going to hold Miller Genuine Draft accountable or DeWalt? And poor 3M, their duck tape has surely been complicit in the majority of kidnappings that have taken place since its induction.
I'm joking and I'm not.
Let me clarrify that I understand the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and although I file-share, I know that I shouldn't be. So I am not crying about losing my free music. I am crying cause this type of ruling sets one hell of a precedent. The funny thing, is that probably most libs will be pissed and conservatives please with this, but it should be the exact reverse. All things considered, this will NOT be good for business
(or making the perfect party mix).
I say 'BOO.' What say you?
By Robert - 6/28/2005
8 Comments:
I agree what, a retarded ruling.
All of your reasoning is absolutely correct, but it isn't so bad as it looks.
The ruling actually says that a product with legitimate use that can be used illegally is ok, and that the manufacturers are not liable. However, if a company manufactures such a product and "promotes its use to infringement" then that company is liable for the infringement.
Strange ruling, but not as bad as it could have been.
What I want to know is who and how does one judge whether or not a manufacturer is promoting acts of infringement?
Almost forgot, the music you're hearing is: Le Tigre, Deceptacon.
And it's as illegal as it is rad.
NOW DANCE!
Jeff,
Maybe it isn't as bad as it looks, but it's a slippery slope out there.
I like that tune.
There will be a way around these attempts to stop music from being downloaded. There always is.
I would be for the ruling if it had some of the affects you spoke of (gun manufacturers), but i don't see it happening. so know we just have to pay for music.
and you know I honestly do try out the some music by downloading, then if i like it I buy the CD. They say that never happens, but I do it.
I do it too chuck.
I don't see how gun manufacturers should be found liable for illegal use of their product, though. Surely there are legal uses for guns, even "assault weapons."
Even beer brewers would be liable for people who abuse their product and drink & drive. I can't live in a country whithout beer.
One crazy thing about the ruling I feel the need to point out.
The court ruled that Morpheus and Grokster "promoted infringement" chiefly by targeting former napster users. This is stratnge precident. For the sake of arguement assume that in the previous sony decision that sony had promoted the illegal use of their VCRs, and were found in liable for illegal activities committed by their customers. Does that mean that when DVDs and most notably DVD burners enter the market place, that the manufacturers cannot market their device to former VCR users?
This ruling clearly blurs a line that was at one point sharply drawn.
i dont really think gun manufactures should be liable (just like i don't think grokster should be liable), but i would be for stiffling guns anyway possible, just because i don't like them.
But whatever, its that damn O'Connor's fault
Post a Comment
<< Home