The MGM vs Grokster case ended today...

[voltz]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/tech...ster/index.htm

I can't see this as any good considering the ruling was against P2P, but what happens next could decide the fate of whether the use of these programs in general is illegal.

[Burky]

I doubt they could ever stop the distribution of torrents, as it is effectively the same as sending your friend a film over messenger which couldn't be stopped happening, except that you don't know who you are sending to.

The fact that it is illegal to have such programs won't make much of a difference. Downloading a film/music etc is illegal, people do it, so people will continue to obtain and use P2P software regardless of whether the software itself is illegal.

[mollipen]

I can't see this as any good considering the ruling was against P2P, but what happens next could decide the fate of whether the use of these programs in general is illegal.

The ruling wasn't against P2P... it was against, pretty much, any program where the program is specifically advertised for use in the distribution of pirated software.

See, this is the important part:

In Grokster, the court did not address the question of whether the technology at issue in the case -- known as file-sharing, or "peer-to-peer" -- is illegal. Rather, the justices focused on the actions of the peer-to-peer software companies named in the case, Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc., the maker of file-sharing software known as Morpheus, and whether they encouraged the illegal use of their technology.

While I'm a strong supporter of P2P software, that is pretty much a common sense decision.

[Diff-chan]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/tech...ster/index.htm

I can't see this as any good considering the ruling was against P2P, but what happens next could decide the fate of whether the use of these programs in general is illegal.

Nice analysis there, chief.

if a company makes software, and that software is used to download copyrighted works, then the software company can be held responsible.

If a company makes P2P software, and no copyrighted work is shared over it illegally, then there's nothing wrong with the software.

[Fe 26]

Nice analysis there, chief.

if a company makes software, and that software is used to download copyrighted works, then the software company can be held responsible.

If a company makes P2P software, and no copyrighted work is shared over it illegally, then there's nothing wrong with the software.

how can you make a program that shares files, but can not be used to share illegal files? That is like asking for an uncrashable car, or a gun that can only kill criminals.

[voltz]

Nice analysis there, chief.

if a company makes software, and that software is used to download copyrighted works, then the software company can be held responsible.

If a company makes P2P software, and no copyrighted work is shared over it illegally, then there's nothing wrong with the software.

But exactly who in their right mind is going to use it for legal purposes? Of all the software that's downloaded, pretty much everyone who uses it will be loading or distributing copyrighted works beyond what the courts allow and the only thing that's gonna put a perminent stop to all activity is to shut down the internet which is never gonna happen in this lifetime.

What it really hurts is the developers of new software, plus future innovation that will fall under a watchful eye to see if there's any possible chance it can be used illegally. If our gov doesn't like what they see, they can shut it down, plus throw in possible charges which makes the risk of even trying not worth it. The only way we're gonna see P2P remain safe is to keep it's development outside US territory where laws haven't been adjusted to keep them from ever becoming available. On the other hand for everbody else, hollywood and the music industry really couldn't give a shit.

or a gun that can only kill criminals.

I was thinking of a polish hand pistol.

[Diff-chan]

But exactly who in their right mind is going to use it for legal purposes? Of all the software that's downloaded, pretty much everyone who uses it will be loading or distributing copyrighted works beyond what the courts allow and the only thing that's gonna put a perminent stop to all activity is to shut down the internet which is never gonna happen in this lifetime.

So youre saying, basically, that P2P is used for illegal activites?

Then P2P should be shut down, yea. You might like the gravy train that P2P provides but if it serves no legal purpose whatsoever then its no more useful to society than the black market drug trade.

[Joust Williams]

"So youre saying, basically, that P2P is used for illegal activites?

Then P2P should be shut down, yea."

Ain't this the truth...

lamer: oh no big brother, corporations win, P2P will be illegal
sensical being: no, just ones that encourage sharing of illegal files
lamer: but everyone uses it for illegal files
sensical being: ....

"the only thing that's gonna put a perminent stop to all activity is to shut down the internet which is never gonna happen in this lifetime"

So then you should have no problem

[mollipen]

But exactly who in their right mind is going to use it for legal purposes?

Uhm, BitTorrent is used for perfectly legal purposes all of the time. A number of companies release new software products or upgrades via BT now. When we release the first PDF issue of our new magazine, we're going to release it via BitTorrent, as we don't have a huge amount of bandwidth to distribute it.

[voltz]

Uhm, BitTorrent is used for perfectly legal purposes all of the time. A number of companies release new software products or upgrades via BT now. When we release the first PDF issue of our new magazine, we're going to release it via BitTorrent, as we don't have a huge amount of bandwidth to distribute it.

Morning mayo? I'm interested.