Supreme court faces tough decision on how to rule file sharing

I just posted the article Supreme court faces tough decision on how to rule file sharing.

  In an  hour-long hearing, the Supreme Court justices are facing a tough decision on  which way to go for the entertainment industries vs. Streamcast Networks and  Grokster.  A bad decision...
Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

It’s obvious P2P is illegal most of the time. What else can a person trade over the net? Movie? Music? Software? Porn? It’s that simple, and everyone knows…

Yes, unauthorized usage of content must be stopped. But I don’t think that going after P2P companies is the answer. What we need is effective licensing control implemented at the source (creator) and authentication at the target (user). That way P2P or other distribution methods in the middle don’t matter. Start off with 2048-bit encryption at the microphone, keyboard, or camera. Then install cybernetic authentication implants in the brains of all people (starting in the womb) so that there is no way to bypass security before the target. This will render most piracy methods ineffective and also eliminate a lot of casual piracy like eavesdropping outside of performance halls and printed media browsing like the magazine section at Wal-Mart. Extending this further, if the content licensing controls were also implemented as universally-installed cybernetic implants then all people could be content creators and licensees. This would eliminate piracy and other uncompensated usage by corporate criminal organizations like record companies and movie studios.

I personnaly think it’s ridiculous, where is the much hyped legal system that would support artists and p2p users at the same time? Believing in that utopia can only go so far IMHO.

“comparing file sharing networks to photocopiers and VCR” … or guns. Does anyone know how we can bring the gun lobby’s billions of legal aid to us? They’ve done pretty well with the “It ain’t OUR fault people do bad things with our stuff” defense. :S Maybe if we wrote a nice letter? We wouldn’t use smilies or anythin’. Well, maybe a few… :stuck_out_tongue:

“comparing file sharing networks to photocopiers and VCR” …or guns. or cars. lets go sue ford cause some nitwit ran over someone. lets sue smith and wesson for all the guns they supply to ppl who shoot others. and knife companies, heck OJ used one. gotta sue the stainless steel manufactures for selling the steel to knife producing companies also. the list goes on and on!

quote: “the list goes on and on!” That does not means however they’re all sensible analogies.

Wouldn’t it be sweet, if as of a result of a ruling against Grogster that the I-pod was declared illegal? Then MGM could sell thier own version of the I-Pod . And you would have to pay MGM for the video and audio content placed on a MGM type device. Of course, when asked why MGM was not suing Apple, MGM replied they wern’t interested in Apple. Methinks it is a small step before MGM or the powers what be discover they could also make money suing Apple, H-P, or Creative.

EDIT: Removed off topic rant. ANY further political bashing against anyones homeland will result in the locking of the thread. Stay on topic or lose the ability to react. We need to keep an eye on this story as it affects us all and we want input from the readers. But only concerning the topic not insults againsts peoples homelands. Just remember that countries are not only made of politicians- they are made of people and people have feelings. Although, I know politicians are people too.
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 17:27]

[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 17:22]

[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 17:24]

[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 17:23]

[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 17:23]

Sorry about my rant (it really wasn’t that bad IMHO) Gonna go have some BBQ now. Mmmmm.:d EDIT: Well neither was sherriffs-but I cut 'em all out so we could start over on a clean slate. Rather than trying to decide where to draw the line or to leave responses up to deleted posts. Don’t forget to wash that BBQ down with a beer!
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 20:32]

masterbw: hits the nail on the head.

QUOTE: But I don’t think that going after P2P companies is the answer. If you take away the pirate content from P2P their isnt much else left to P2P and it wouldnt be needed, everyone managed without P2P before it arrived. load up Edonkey or limewire and tell me whats legal maybe 1% if that.

Looking long-term, as a manager I can see several legitimate uses for P2P. On-demand interactive marketing content, on-demand training files, convenience for the consumer, etc. As a result, the potential to reduce costs internally is substantial and most evident by reduced physical material, reduced travel (already with video conference, and many company email systems do not handled files larger than 10mb (some even less). A thick Powerpoint presentation, Access file or large Excel sheet can easily exceed this. Just my thoughts on it’s legitimacy…
[edited by slacker6 on 31.03.2005 19:36]

tinku, slacker6 and masterbw are on the right track. I heard on the news yesterday that the Supreme court says that if over 50% use is illegal then it has to be stopped. But, interestingly, they said that illegal activity is tolerated for an undetermined length of time, to give startups the chance to find/prove legitimate uses. If it stays 90% illegal trading, I think filesharing is doomed. If new products and services that are legal spring up and occupy over 50% of the bandwidth then it will survive. So I expect to see this as part of the decision. Plus, in our story yesterday Intel and Bertelsmann are doing just that. So it’s possible to make P2P legit.
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 31.03.2005 20:25]

The business philosophy of “the customer is always right” should apply to the RIAA/MPAA as well. Consumers are standing by waiting on an affordable, fair digital distribution system. For the life of me, I can’t understand why these groups do not embrace it (other than greed) or don’t see this. Their mentality is like swimming upstream in a white-water rapid - constantly pushing against the needs/desires of the majority. Apple almost has it but the quality is not user-defined, still costly ($.99/track) and a proprietary format kill the deal. Not to mention the RIAA is already trying to raise the Itunes price. From where I sit, their management has failed miserably. The only problem with this is they are accountable to nobody. No stockholders, only artists who are cornered into signed with member labels that bow to the middle man. Truthfully one could say they are accountable to the consumers (the same one’s they are trying to stick it to) but our only voice is to NOT BUY. I just don’t get it. What is so hard about it?

And, please don’t personal attack people… Besides, I am just telling the truth, and the truth always hurts! What do you guys really do on a P2P network? And at least I admit if I do that… unlike some people who felt offended for doing the same.