| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gungankllr
   |
Posted - 2005.06.27 15:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Gungankllr on 27/06/2005 15:45:37
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/grokster_stream.html
In other words, private companies such as Grokster, Kazaa and/or Limewire can be sued by corporations or private individuals,or even brought up on charges for facilitating the transfer of copyrighted material.
Regardless of how you/I/whoever feels about it, expect a wave of lawsuits the size of Texas to come roaring down the pipe, mostly aimed at thost that share.
Be careful.
www.hadean.org
|
Trey Azagthoth
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 15:48:00 -
[2]
Dude, dont believe everything you read. If you want official Senate decisions, then check .gov sites.
u think i can sniper mine if i buy a geddon and fit it with sensor boosters and miners? -gizli |
jbob2000
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 15:56:00 -
[3]
Come to Canada, it's much nicer here.
-----------------------------------------------
CANADIAN |
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 15:57:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Trey Azagthoth
Dude, dont believe everything you read. If you want official Senate decisions, then check .gov sites.
Uhh... Ok. Here's a link for MSNBC, USAToday and CNN.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-06-27-supreme-court-file-sharing_x.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/index.htm
www.hadean.org
|
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 15:58:00 -
[5]
Oh, and a link to the actual PDF file for the Supreme Court's Decision.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf
www.hadean.org
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:13:00 -
[6]
Its rubbish.
Aslong as there are countries where its not illegal they cant do anything.
|
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Its rubbish.
Aslong as there are countries where its not illegal they cant do anything.
True, but they can go after US residents.
www.hadean.org
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gungankllr
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Its rubbish.
Aslong as there are countries where its not illegal they cant do anything.
True, but they can go after US residents.
Not if lets say a US resident own a server in "farawayistan".
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:18:00 -
[9]
Not to mention it would be abit difficult to prosecute
(I would imagine) 90% of all the private users.
|
KingsGambit
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:42:00 -
[10]
Wasn't there a case where the RIAA or some such organisation took Grokster/Morpheus to court over just such a thing, and the US Supreme Court judge ruled against them, saying that as they (Grokster/Morpheus) had no way of controlling what was traded on the network, they couldn't be held liable for the infringements of individual users? I would have thought that would have set a precedent of some sort up for future cases to be judged against.
It's like suing every company who makes cutlery or hand/power tools for producing potential weapons. Quite silly really, but then only in America is it possible to patent sandwiches with the crust cut off!  The main thing with this particular scenario as other posters have mentioned, that as it is with regard to the Net as a whole, it crosses all International borders, and what is legal somewhere may not be legal elsewhere (eg. Gambling, Adult content, hosting text/audio files, etc). In America there is a "Fair Use" law which we in Britain don't have, and that's another of the murky areas I think. Still, interesting outcome of the court case, but I doubt anything will come of it from previous precedents (of which US law is largely based).
-------------
BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals |
Gamer4liff
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 16:53:00 -
[11]
who the heck still uses kazaa?
bittorrent ftw.
|
Basileus
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 17:03:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gungankllr
Edited by: Gungankllr on 27/06/2005 15:45:37
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/grokster_stream.html
In other words, private companies such as Grokster, Kazaa and/or Limewire can be sued by corporations or private individuals,or even brought up on charges for facilitating the transfer of copyrighted material.
Regardless of how you/I/whoever feels about it, expect a wave of lawsuits the size of Texas to come roaring down the pipe, mostly aimed at thost that share.
Be careful.
The problem with this is, that next the US will try and force this law onto other countries.
|
Leno
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 17:12:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Basileus
Originally by: Gungankllr
Edited by: Gungankllr on 27/06/2005 15:45:37
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/06/grokster_stream.html
In other words, private companies such as Grokster, Kazaa and/or Limewire can be sued by corporations or private individuals,or even brought up on charges for facilitating the transfer of copyrighted material.
Regardless of how you/I/whoever feels about it, expect a wave of lawsuits the size of Texas to come roaring down the pipe, mostly aimed at thost that share.
Be careful.
The problem with this is, that next the US will try and force this law onto other countries.
we want u to feel our misery...
---------------
RIP - Smoske, My Friend
Coasterbrian > babies are good, especially raw
Coasterbrian > soft and crunchy at the same time
|
Kaeten
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 17:54:00 -
[14]
if they do go after ever single person they will ahve to put like hald the country in jail or sue half the ppl. It's ridiculous.
|
JenKrist
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 18:09:00 -
[15]
Paramount Pictures already tried to sue me in 2002 after i dowloaded Jackass the movie. charges were dropped after they found out Intrampment is illegle in the Uk =-) what kind of a company puts there software up for sharing encrypt a bug in it and find out who DL's it?
neways
time to move to switzerland......
|
Frank Horrigan
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 18:57:00 -
[16]
Originally by: jbob2000
Come to Canada, it's much nicer here.
I would if i wasent 16 
|
ricko mortis
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 20:18:00 -
[17]
Originally by: JenKrist
Paramount Pictures already tried to sue me in 2002 after i dowloaded Jackass the movie. charges were dropped after they found out Intrampment is illegle in the Uk =-) what kind of a company puts there software up for sharing encrypt a bug in it and find out who DL's it?
neways
time to move to switzerland......
You should have been prosicuted for bad taste all the same
|
fairimear
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 21:14:00 -
[18]
there are 3 statments in starwars that apply to all things in life i find.
"Try not, do or do not there is no try".
"A great many thing's depened on your own point of view".
AND "The tighter u grasp the more starsystems slip through your fingers"
the last i find applies to this.
they will just make the more hardcore sharer's dig deeper and become far more harder to stop.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world Domination.
|
Muthsera
|
Posted - 2005.06.27 22:27:00 -
[19]
It's the sanate that passes laws.
But it is the supreme court that set the premesis of the law.
If you'd understood that.
But this only effects US.
Most file shares are not there in the first place though.
SoonÖ
|
KrakizBad
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 00:14:00 -
[20]
Laws are made by Legislative action as well as judicial review. American courts must follow Star Decisis (sp maybe) which means they must uphold rulings made by Apellelate courts. The supreme court is the highest court and every case they see just about sets a precedant. If a precedant has already been set then it is up to the trial/ appelate courts to make the right decision.
what could happen if the big guys go crazy is making harsh trade restrictions on smaller countries until they enact similar laws. Kinda like America already does on Cuban cigars.
And entrapment, according to american law, must entice you to do something you "wouldn't normally do". Of course only applies to Americans, but be careful. I'm sure there are plenty of cases to argue that most of you would normaly dl "illegal" content.
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 01:06:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 28/06/2005 01:08:39
Originally by: Basileus
The problem with this is, that next the US will try and force this law onto other countries.
Which should prove interesting since theres so many people that just love the US 
------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Muthsera
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 03:21:00 -
[22]
Originally by: KrakizBad
what could happen if the big guys go crazy is making harsh trade restrictions on smaller countries until they enact similar laws. Kinda like America already does on Cuban cigars.
Ever heard of "Soverenity" ?
But I see your point though.
The laws in america very often affect those outside it.
I however don't think it whould followed up in other world lagitorial organs.
Becus this is a desission to ***** down on servers that probive the means to trade.
Comming from a contry that quite normally offers the legal support for private made guns.
You could argue the same case that in the same premises that American legistraters are "guilty" in setting the stage for murder.
Guns don't kill ppl.. Rappers do..
(for those of you who don't know the line, it's taken from a song)
Well.. I'm a strong advokate for gun control.
However. I see the potential it have for sports and hunting.
But I don't see the sport in assault weaponds or the hunting use.
So control must be set in order to the damage it does.
I think the supreme court have clearly not stepped into a good desision.
I think it's right out stupid to be honnest.
But to be frank.
Copyright can be a problem.
However I fail to see how a pop star or mettalica for that matter can't do whitout a few dollars more.
I also think RIAA is approaching this from the wrong angle.
If they put down the price on albums and give the artists a bigger share I think they whould limit themself to the ammount of download that accures.
Becus in the end. Music is only diffrent tones.
And it's not like ppl invent the soundwaves.
It's only when you trow a connection to the music that you can generate support for it.
I'm glad to support Smashing Pumpkins or Bruce Springsteen or Madrugada for that matter, whit buying they're cd.
And I have.
But I'm not glad to pay for jibberish that comes out of the music market every day.
Stopping legal fileshares will only do that.
Hack the planet.. ;)
Copyright have gone to far in my opinion.
SoonÖ
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 10:39:00 -
[23]
Bah, just read the verdict.
Change the thread title.
This news which was widley publisized is absolutley incorrect! For some reason a reporter got it wrong and then diffused the story to a whole group of news agencies. The real deal is this:
Companies which make items which are used only to infringe on copyrights are liable to be sued. they did not set a ratio of legal/illegal use either. This is the ONLY thing the supreme court ruled. The Sony Betatape rule is still in vigor, not only that but the court gave P2P software that same standing,
so actually P2P has won out.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 13:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: jbob2000
Come to Canada, it's much nicer here.
Think you might want to review recent changes in Canadian copyright/IP type legislation. Some very DMCA / anit-file trading bills have been pushed through lately, brining Canadian laws much closer to their US counterparts.
Canada was significantly more "free" in these matters, but it seems to be changing.
|
Genevieve Blue
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 13:49:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Muthsera
Becus in the end. Music is only diffrent tones.
And it's not like ppl invent the soundwaves.
It's only when you trow a connection to the music that you can generate support for it.
I'm glad to support Smashing Pumpkins or Bruce Springsteen or Madrugada for that matter, whit buying they're cd.
And I have.
But I'm not glad to pay for jibberish that comes out of the music market every day.
Are you serious. You're saying only the artists you like should be entitled to be paid for their work?
So it's okay if someone devotes their life to making music or art, or designing computer games or any of the other thousands of things covered by copyright, but doesn't earn a penny because mean spirited thieves rip it all for free, because you don't like them.
Besides, where on earth does this pathetic fallacy come from that somehow theft and other criminal acts are okay when the victim is a corporation.
A corporation that therefore earns less and is less beneficial for the economy. So employs fewer people, and pays less taxes to pay for your education, health and welfare. That puts you out of work when spods won't buy your products because they can steal them instead.
Is it okay then?
|
Nikolai Nuvolari
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 14:04:00 -
[26]
I read that already, they didn't say anything about suing Limewire. Limewire RULES! It's the only client out there that has a spinning lime. Therefore I love it.
Seriously, how can they stop this stuff by going after the guys writing the client software? I mean aside from the fact that it totally violates their rights (it's been firmly established that you're not legally responsible for how people use your products), how are they going to stop open-source software that people can and will write on their own just because they want to, without actually creating a business that can be sued?
___________________________________________
^^^***---All things serve the Beam---***^^^
GDBT is recruiting! |
Nira Li
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 14:46:00 -
[27]
They only want to stop this cuz they r greedy
the movie buissnes made 2 billion more last year then the year before and they still claim that they lose awful lot of money.
Now I can be totaly wrong about this but this is what I've read.. and btw they will never stop us
|
ThunderGodThor
|
Posted - 2005.06.28 14:54:00 -
[28]
Funny you pick the least improtaint rulling this week. This ruling here is 1000 times more importaint.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108 This is one of the brief. http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_8545.shtml
This one should be a easyer read. This is the opion of the court form the US Suprem Court site.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/counsellists/cl545-2a.html
More info on the case also form the US Suprem Court.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
Every one should read at least some of this stuff. Now to sum up what happened basicly In the US you no longer have any property rights over this rulling. You are no longer protected form emanate domain and the 5th amendemt no longer protects your property rights. If you all dont think this isnt a problem or going to be very shortly think again.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |