Will the 1984 Betamax ruling protect P2P in Supreme Court?

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Will the 1984 Betamax ruling protect P2P in Supreme Court?.

 GristyMcFisty used our news submit to tell us that the P2P  software providers and the Motion Picture Association of America, will  present their arguments before the Supreme Court of...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/9771-Will-the-1984-Betamax-ruling-protect-P2P-in-Supreme-Court.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/9771-Will-the-1984-Betamax-ruling-protect-P2P-in-Supreme-Court.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

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

#2

even if they code the software so that nothing illegal could be downloaded there will alwayz be “patches” for this stuf. im thinking of the DVD regions. a couple of years ago you couldnt play a US DVD on a European DVDROM drive but someone made a patch that allowed you to do so.:B


#3

This should be a biggest Can of Worms open every!!! Come on People if they blame the P2P for sharing Copyrighted stuff then lets get all Lawyers an sue the modem companies or *ell lets sue Microsoft & linux like everyone does because we use there software and they let us download all type of stuff they is should know better then let us download that stuff. Oh my god what has this world come too hehheh my 2 cents


#4

Shouldn’t we just sue Al Gore for creating the internet.:wink:


#5

i miss the good old days of just radio and your imagination what wonderfull times they were mind you saying that i did not own a radio licence either oh dear i made the radio bradcasters loose some money its all my fault and others like me oh well same shit differant day


#6

Al Gore…thats pretty funny;) ---------------------------------- "what’s the difference between software providers and cigarette providers…Alcohol providers…I don’t see them being sued! " Big difference…these programmers are not walking hand and hand with lobbyists like good ol’ tobacco and alcohol makers stuffing dollar after dollar into their pockets convincing them of what they need to do and say!!:S


#7

[I]Big difference…these programmers are not walking hand and hand with lobbyists like good ol’ tobacco and alcohol makers stuffing dollar after dollar into their pockets convincing them of what they need to do and say!![/I] Maybe…But tobacco lost it’s case for being liable for end users actions. As you say programmers aren’t holding hands with lobbyists…yet they are unscathed so far by the legal system, how can that be!!! :stuck_out_tongue:
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 23.01.2005 00:14]


#8

It’s like Sueing Adobe Photoshop because some king of pervet use it to tweek some child porn pictures. It’s full of bullshit these lawsuits


#9

Let’s see now why was were copyright laws enacted ? To protect the original Artist/ Creator of the works! Who profits most from them now ? Who profiteers from most LAWS, LAWYERS! Who makes the most money from grown or produced products, not the growers or producers the MONEY MEN! The amoral leaches who ride the coat tails of the artists, growers & producers who do all the creative hard work while these fat cats trade 'futures" and options on their work! The world is sure screwed when someone can get rich by buying and selling currency and needing to do nothing for their profit but sit on the toilet with a mobile phone trying to guess which will be the next country to go down said toilet! Let’s get some sanity back into the equation , ban the lobbyist and tie a politicians income to the success of their country’s economy!


#10

“…yet they are unscathed so far by the legal system, how can that be?” Unscathed…not really. Remember this company called 321 Studios?


#11

[I]Unscathed…not really. Remember this company called 321 Studios?[/I] True enough and a good point. I should have said programmers of P2P applications, this is what I meant. 321 ran afoul of the law by bundling an application with their disc duplication software that circumvented the Content Scrambling System, and then stubbornly refusing to stop, different deal there
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 23.01.2005 03:13]


#12

As long as the P2P companies can prove that the programs in question have a perfectly legal use, then the movie and music industry have no chance. I use P2P all the time for perfectly legal uses like downloading dll’s after my system screws itself to save me from reformatting and losing everything. More then likely this will just be the RIAA and MPAA throwing money at a problem they cant solve and hoping that the other guy runs our first.


#13

[I]As long as the P2P companies can prove that the programs in question have a perfectly legal use, then the movie and music industry have no chance. [/I] This is the core issue and it also speaks to why the tobacco companies were doomed, while the admittedly dangerous alcohol industry, like P2P has not as much to worry about. Tobacco was destined to lose, because even if you used their product as designed, it will kill you from it’s use and not from abuse. There is no safe way to enjoy tobacco. In other words, alcohol abuse will kill, but a glass of red wine in actually beneficial, even a bottle or two of dark beer a night is good for you according to many studies. Same logic goes for P2P, as you say it has many legal uses, and the only time it runs afoul with the law is when the end user abuses/misuses the product, which is beyond the control of the creators. This is why now we see the feeble attempt to show the Supreme Court that the programmers could, if they wanted, create a program that made it impossible to share illegal content. My challenge to the industry of entertainment is to explain why their programmers cannot stop the copying of their precious content. It can’t be done either that’s why. It’s time they left the legal scene and accept the world for what it is. It is also time they quit upsetting customers and industry innovators with their annoying DRM schemes.
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 23.01.2005 17:50]


#14

P2P could be engineered to prevent copyright infringement. But in order to do that it would need access to a VAST library of named copyrighted material in order to compare against and this would only go so far. The media industry are UNWILLING to even provide such a list as potentailly this will show that some works they would like to claim copyright over actually are not. There is a lot of dicey paperwork within the industry over who holds rights to what. The RIAA and MPAA etc like to obfuscate this information in order to retain control of certain works. If they provided a list then suddenly people could come forward contesting the rights to such works. Don’t be fooled. The industry is just trying to pass the buck of responsibility without doing jack shit themselves.


#15

The only damages that The Supreme Court monitors are the damage to the INTERESTS OF RICHES… If 10.000 people die every hour due to alcohol, traffic accidents due to alcohol consuming and tobacco doesn’t matter to Supreme Court… They say if people don’t want to die, they must no pay for alcohol and tobacco, is not the problem of Supreme Court… But they defend a little bit of robbers thay make us pay a lot of money to rent a movie o to listen to music, and they get awesome amounts of money and nobody controls what they do with that money…