Kill someone? Not Smith & Wesson's fault, copy a movie? that's Grokster's fault

I think the only firearms we should be allowed to have are blackpowder weapons.

We could have duells and dueling pistols, and carry swords around. It would serve as deterrent, but not be quite as deadly, and we could instill a sense of honor about the whole thing.

 

I fully agree. The parallel is obvious.

 

After reading the article, I think that the court case ruled that you can hold software companies liable if they promote illegal use of a product.

Read the actual ruling:

"We hold that 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,"

Which imo opionion (and I'm a liberal and pro-fileshare) is something that have to be ruled in such manner.

The next big lawsuit, which might acutally really stifle innovations, would be against some one who made the product that can use for file sharing, but not promoting it as such. Think the guy that made bittorent or all those new bittorent client makers. Most of them, from what I've seen have not promoted the software, we have to wait and see if they actually get into a lawsuit and a decision against them.

 

And oh yeah, I think every missed out on the lawsuit that says that major cable companies don't have to open up their lines to their competitors, that too me can actually be something that is a big deal and very like bring a monopoly much like the railroads of the early 1900's.

 

Lastly, on the parallel between guns, guns are in the constitution, if you're a judge you vote in favor of it. Gun companies don't promote the use of guns on innocent people and I'm pretty sure their marketing strategy don't even close to doing that.

 

I have always been a bit, "torn", as a social liberal who owns multiple firearms and love to hunt and shoot.

Untill recently, I have NOT been very supportive of CCW--mostly because I don't trust the wanabe John Wayne and Rambo types packin' heat.

The Second Amendment isn't as all-encompasing as the NRA would like us to believe. Obviously, we can't have machine-guns and grenades/howitzers for general use evan though permits can be obtained for fully automatic weapns.

But this Grockster ruling is pretty close to "Do as I say, not as I do"--I don't think they should be anymore liable than Smith & Wesson when their products are used for a purpose that is illegal.

 

The difference here is that Grokster <I>promotes</i> their products for illegal use. Are you saying they should be liable regardless of how they promote their product, or that it should be OK to promote products for illegal use?

 

To be honest, I'm taking it at face value--what is "promoting"? I don't use Grockster and I'm really not that familiar with their product other than it's general purpose.

My comparison, are CD burners doing the same thing? I know they aren't web based but they have the same inent. I can go buy a new album and burn 200 copies for my friends and family.

 

Grokster, Napster or any other "ster' is set up solely to facilitate something that is illegal. That's its entire aim. And it promotes itself as such. As much as I don't like guns, I can't say the same thing about gun manufacturers. There's not the same degree of involvement in the illegal activity among gun manfacturers that there is for these sites that literally exist so people can break the law.

As for your CD burner...you are entitled to one copy of virtually everything you buy, as long as it's for your own use. Use your burner in that way, and you're golden.

 

How does Grockster "promote" illegal use of their product? Can someone show proof of this? Is it because they don't go out of their way to say "don't drink and drive?" Can it be proved that they haven't?

 

it's a file sharing product right?? it's very design is to facilitate in breaking the law?? there is no "legal" way to use their "product"..its very use by anyone is a violation. right???

what am i missing? i'm not asking that sarcastically, i'm being serious. i don't use these websites, but I have a general understanding of them.

 

There are artists and producers that want to have a way to distribute their songs over the net free , in that case this is a perfectly legit tool. Many small artists are doing exactly that to promote their music. Could also be used by shareware software developers too.

 

Im guess that is what I am asking as well Max...I know that there is a difference between a CD burner or VCR, but the intent changes based on who uses it, right?

I guess it's just a question of "promotion"

 

There are files that are not copyrighted. I could write story about the houston rockets, compose my own music, make my own video games, movies and share them.

I have downloaded many non-copyrighted etc. files with filesharing software. Many people share freeware too.

 

excellent point.

 

A good comparison may be a radar detector. In and of itself a radar detector isn't illegal but the vast majority of the time it is used to help a driver break the law.

 

There are also services to mod your game systems so you can play copied games, but they claim that they do it so you can play foreign ones. Sure it may have some legal uses, but the primary use for it is definetly illegal.

Filesharing camps out somewhere between that and cable descramblers.

 

What about growing pot? Unfortunately, I think that is expressely written down as illegal. But if you think about it, growing it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with smoking it. The pot plant in and of itself can be a very attractive potted plant!

 

What about Xerox machines? Why doesn't Barnes and Nobles and the publishing industry attack the copier companies?

 

Grokster became popular after the Napster ruling. It boasted about its decentralized servers and the inability to get sued by the MPAA. Plus, most of its searching was focused upon MP3s.

If anyone is thinking this ruling applies to bittorrent, on the surface, it doesn't. Bittorent has no search software, and has been embraced by non-IP corporations as a method to distribute data without taxing a server or system (when it's individual employees use it legally).

The MPAA is free to sue the hosts and trackers of torrent files, but Bittorent software and its variants are relatively sage.