Wow.... just.. wow.

[Blam-O!]

This ruling seems mainly aimed at grokster/streamcast marketing techniques, not P2P. The courts have basically set the standards for legal P2P... Don't use marketing to entice people to break the law, leave that up to their own imagination. That's how I read it anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think for the most part they did target grokster and streamcast. But this is a very stupid way to do it in. And this brings the next possible point - whos next?

If the courts get away with this, not only is it a waste of money and time passing the laws and taking them to court, but it is totaly arse backwards.....

[durex]

nm

Edited June 30, 2005 by durex

[muku]

Relax people. RIAA and MPAA don't have a chance.

These guys are lamers who think the web is the entire net.

The only end users who get caught are those stupid enough to leave

hundreds or even thousands of songs in their "shared Folder" .

And anyway ...Grokster & Streamcast are lame progs.

People are wising up and deserting these progs for BitTorrent, DC++ and IRC.

I don't see anyone from the RIAA & MPAA attacking DC++ or IRC.

How are they gonna attack DC++ or IRC?

They don't even know what they are.

And what about the thousands of Private FTP servers out there in LALA Land?

Check out the top 10 progs on SourceForge

6 of them are filesharing progs! None using the tech that Grokster and Streamcast use....

none advocating the use of their software for illegal filesharing.

Also remember USA law is only valid in USA.

What if the server is in Russia or China or even Iraq?

Can you honestly see any 3rd world country that has been

oppressed by the USA ( and there are a lot of them)

complying with all this s***?

Furthermore it will be very hard to sue any company that hasn't

actively encouraged Piracy. ( See Article 1 below)

Microsoft has somehow snuck DRM enabled wma format into Napster.

Personally I don't think it's gonna stick.

The majority will balk when they realise the songs are copy protected.

Apart from all of the above there is one over-riding

factor which everyone is missing :

Music wants to be free.

And always will.

And if your still not convinced read these articles by people

who know what they're talking about.

Article 1

Article 2

It's a dynamic world out there and, if you wanna be a pirate you have to move with the times.

Learn how to use IRC....or DC++ or, if you must use a web based prog use

Shareaza or some other Gnutella based prog (they weren't even mentioned in

the court case.

But if you're not an UberGeek and you only know how to use Web Based progs

don't worry.

I predict these File Sharing companies will simply change their tune.

All they have to do is put a notice in their software and on their web site.

Something like:

"Whatever you do don't use this software to illegally download music, movies

and pirated software!"

B)

Edited July 2, 2005 by muku

[DonDamm]

Oh, I don't I don't!!!

I am, however, a beta tester........ )

[syntax010]

The whole copyright issue itself is nonsense. I've seen this whole mess from its beginnings with Napster up to its current incarnations. For starters, what people are doing over p2p isn't anything different from what people have done for years with cassette tapes and vcrs.

If you look up legal history, you'll see a similar case was brought up in some major courts YEARS ago concerning vcrs and how they can record live TV. The final ruling was that it was completely legal to use a VCR to make a copy of anything that was broadcasted over TV/cable networks.

Fans have been making backup copies of music or just trading songs via cassette recorders for a few generations now, with no issues or problems. It just goes to proof how full of hot air these pompus windbags are. The only thing that has changed is that people can now trade with others all over the world, instead of just their friends and family. Suprisingly, even though piracy "kills" the entertainment business, and puts so many "poor artists" out of their income.....oddly all these big mega stars and companies that make huge complaints over piracy are all the ones that take in millions or billions each year in profits. Also oddly, most of the "starving artists" that haven't become mega famous, all seem to support p2p because it gets their music, movies, etc out to the public in ways they never could on their own.

Their arguement would hold more water in their complaints over piracy if Sony or Microsoft, or similar company were on the verge of bankruptcy because of it. This is not the case. Sure their profits are down some because of piracy, but it's not exactly putting them in the poor house either. What it comes down to is greed, and obession over money and profits, nothing more. The RIAA and MPAA don't give a flying f'k about the "artists" they claim to be "defending" with all their efforts against people who share things over the internet.

If you will bear with me, here is an example of what I use when I talk to people about the copyright and piracy issue. If you find it useful, feel free to use take on things with people who are obsessed over the issue.

When you buy something, is it yours? Do you own it? or Are you just buying a single user license for using it?

1. If you own it, it is yours to do whatever you like with, including making backup copies to protect your investment, or sharing it with family or friends. If you own it, then there is no merit or right to any of the arguments against the free and open sharing of media of any form. Since you own it and it's yours, you can do whatever you like with it.

2. If you are only buying the single user license to use it yourself......look at this in the extreme they might one day take this issue if they are not stopped. Say your parents let you live with them while you are growing up. However, you aren't paying for the single user license/right to stay in that house. The bank isn't getting anything from you to give you the "right" or "license" to use that house. This means your parents are violating the bank's copyright of your home. As such your parents can be fined and jailed for violating that copryright, since neither they nor you ever paid for you to have the "right" to live at that house.

How about another insane possibility? Have you ever ridden in a car that wasn't yours? A car that you never paid the car factory or dealership for? Then you and your friend or relative, who gave you a ride somewhere, can be jailed and fined. You never paid for the single user license to sit in that car seat or ride within that car.

How about another one? Have you ever used a public restroom? Guess what, your liable to be fined and arrested because you never paid for the user license to sit on that toilet. You never paid the toilet factory who made it, or the business where it is located or the water company for using their water to flush that toilet.

This is where fanatacism and obsession over greed and money, could very well lead to, if this copyright issue isn't put in check and settled once and for all. People could get arrested, jailed, and/or fined for all sorts of rediculous things if we don't put a stop to this floodgate of lawsuits and problems being thrown at people by these big corporations. Don't sit on that park bench, you never paid for the license to sit on it. Don't walk on that sidewalk, you never bought a license to use it for walking on. Don't eat that food, you never bought a user right to injest that food at that location in that way. etc. etc. Think these examples are too extreme to actually ever happen? Think again, the RIAA and MPAA have already sued more than a dozen 12 year old kids, in their efforts to stamp out piracy.