Supreme Court Rules Against P2p Sharing

[vizskywalker 0]

Actually, dreedom of speech says nothing about allowing others to share files across the internet. That freedom in and of itself gives one, and only one, freedom: the freedom to say what you want. It has been expanded through court cases to be the freedom to write and state in anyway that does not infringe on the rights of others whatever opinion you have. Illegally sharing copyrighted material infringes on the rights of copyright holders, which is where the issue arrises from.~Viz

[iGuest 3]

I think that they should go after every p2p program out there. INcluding Limewire and Morpheus or Bearshare and Imesh. I mean come on people who lifes work are being thrown away. They aren't receiving what they have earned and that is money.

[kaputnik 0]

It clearly defies logical reasoning that the creator of an object/program.. or anything.. should be responsible for the end usage of the item. Lets look at a few cases/ideas...

 

'It's round and about the stone age when this bright young fellow, who's been reposing against a sloping hill, looking up at the sky with a buddy of his, finds he has nothing to think about. Suddenly, just then, a boulder (very round) loosens itself fromt he hill face and rolls by these guys. The guy's buddy (lets just call him buddy) suddenly gets the thought.. "Rolling stones, gather no moss", and goes on to become the forst ever philosopher...! THe bright young fellow (buddy's friend) however, thinks.. "A stone rolled by". He goes home (a beautiful cave on the hillside).. has himself an excellent stew and beans... lies down on his bunch of dried leaves and thinks some more "A stone rolledby us today... it was rolling.. it was kinda round.. never seen a square stone roll, although it just may"... So this bright young guy goes onto the hillside with the boulders and finds himself a stone that's not round at all... and tries to roll this down the hill.. it stops right after the second tumble.. he tries again.. it stops right after the first plonk... He's got it.. "Not round stones do not roll" so if you lie on the hillside under 'not round stones' you're unlikely to get run over" .. So that evening he communicates to everyone in the community that 'not round stones will not run you over'

 

After about a year this same fellow was still thinking about 'not round stones', when he rememembered the original incident of the round stone... Then he figured, that if round objects roll, then he could probably fabricate a round object from ..say.. a block of wood, using a sharp piece of stone.. so he does it.. and it works.. and he show's off his new toy to the whole community.. They all like it and they all try it.. His best friend, who's a little raw using a sharp stone gets it all wrong and ends up with a slightly narrow cylinder.. and he's also a little lost trying to balance his new toy so he makes a hole in the center and puts a bent stick through the hole.... Viola.. "Inventor of the first wheel"...

 

NOW.. is this guy responsible for all the lives lost during all the wars throughout himan history, when wheels have been fitted to carrages, used as torture machines to stretch people during the inquisition, fitted to multiple barrels to get a gattling gun, fitted as the running platform for tank treds.. used to run over people and road kill in every-day accidents...?? I think not... what evolved as a simple wheel could be the worlds biggest blunder..

 

Simple fact.. the Microsoft Windows Media Player.. may be used to 'rip' copyrighted music form CD's.. Ripped copyrighted music may then be shared.. "that's criminal" isn't it.. maybe Microsoft should be held responsible for allowing its software to be utilized for ripping copyright music.. and since they are present on about 80% of the world's machines.. maybe they should be taken to court right away.. Nope.. I think not..!! It's the end use of a product that makes the right and wrong... From then on, it's highly debatable about what is right and what is wrong...

[jcguy 0]

I don't think that the makers of p2p programs should be penlized for what the end-users are doing on the programs, haring pirated music. p2p technology in itself can be highly useful, for example in sharing large files in open-source community like Linux. p2p technology should not be penalized, it's unfair to the technology.

[AbyssalStalker 0]

As much as I hate to admit it, they're right when they say P2P is wrong. That doesn't mean I don't participate. I go on limewire atleast 2 times a week to download music. It's like the forbidden fruit. However, no matter how hard they try, we can still send things through AIM and such. So, they can slow down the process, but not stop it. I just feel bad for all those kick-*bottom* musicians that are going in debt

[vizskywalker 0]

Actually, P2P technology and software is not wrong or illegal, the problem is how it is portrayed, advertised, and used.~Viz

[m3ch4 0]

Viz has got it down.

 

P2p software is good in and of itself, if used to transfer legal files between users, say popular freeware programs or large files. p2p software can be used to save server space or used as a "server" if the person that wants to share their files doesn't have one, takes longer, but still usable.

 

The fact that p2p software is mostly used for illegal transfers and that is all it is seen as being used for, is why the programs and their creators are coming under fire. Plus, there is no way that a company that is being taken advantage of by having their programs/music illegal transfered among millions of people would be able to sue each and every person that has illegally downloaded it. Not only is it not financially viable, it'd be tough to legally track down each and every person that has or has had the program/song downloaded.

 

The p2p people are the only people they can blame, and even though it doesn't make sense to sue them (and the courts know this) they still need to blame somebody. Our whole world is centered around being able to lay blame, even if the supreme court didn't want to rule against p2p sharing, they still would have had to rule to.

 

See, the good thing about this ruling...

"...The court stated that distributing a file sharing peer-to-peer software with the intent or purpose that it be used to violate copyright is illegal and the distributor is subject to legal action for the violations of the software's users..."

...so anyone wanting to sue any of the p2p software creators would have to prove that the software was designed specifically to allow the traffic of files that infringe on copyrights. Otherwise there are no grounds. =)

[KnightEagle 0]

P2P or not that is the question. Yes I've used it slap my hand and have them ready for the cuffs. I have downloaded copy right material. Most of the time found the stuff junk and deleted it. Was glad I didnt pay the 50-60 bucks or more for it. For once you buy and open the software you cant return it and get your money back. Most stores will let you exchange it only for other software. But that not always a good alteritive. Yet you cant always find the software in the stores. Alot of software is only found on the internet. and their is the problem. Came acrossed a piece of software in the last few days It not excatly what I needed but it helps a little was it worth the 75 dollers I say no. To me it was worth 20 bucks at the most. Their was a trial but for only 40 sessions. Which is up in no time and not anoff time to see if it real fits your needs forget about learning the program. So Im for the P2P's yet Use them for information use only. If you do pirate the program and do like it and it does what you want then go out and buy it. If it not what you need or not what you wanted then delete it. Generaly with in 30 days you should know if you want it or not. I place the blame for the need of P2P's on the makers of the music and programs. They should allow demos for a spell of thirty days. Lot of companys do not put their programs on demo for they know they are crap. There are lots of ways to kill the programs if the user keeps them after 30 days. So the man was wronge and should pay for his crimes for to tell everyone that it is ok to pirate songs and programs then he should be jailed. Its up to the end user to decided if they want to stay with the law or breck the law. For I posted in the thread ftp or something about I have a ws_ftp 5.0 but I dont know if i gave away a copy or two if it would be ilegal or not for I got it from them when it was free. now they want you to pay 38 dollers for 9.0 now. So is that priycy or not?

[AbyssalStalker 0]

I hope and pray they don't find a way to shut it all down. I love the music and all, I just don't consider it worth it to buy a CD for $16 and listen to about 2-3 songs.