http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4627679.stm
Once again, the Supreme Court of the USA demonstrates that it truly *IS* government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.
This has got to be (one of - because there have been a lot recently!) the most ridiculous rulings ever passed down. What disturbs me most is the ruling is unanimous, and flies in the face of repeated precedent, set over the last 30 years, on exactly the same issue.
I feel sorry for you lot, and offer my sincere wishes for a future government which actually represents your people, rather than big money.
I'm going to triple my copyright infringing as a direct result of this travesty.
Supreme(ly stupid) Court bows before Copyright Cartel
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
It's not all that asinine.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
It seems to me that they're saying you can't advertise your software as a means of obtaining copyrighted material and then claim it's not your fault that people obtain copyrighted material. That doesn't sound supremely stupid to me.In its ruling the Supreme Court said there was "substantial evidence" that Streamcast Networks had "induced" people to use its software to illegally share copyrighted files.
it seems that Streamcast wasn't careful in how they advertised their product.
its the same with anything like this. as long as you don't advertise it's ability to specifically break the law, then you are ok.
a car manufacturer that advertises a car in a manner that specificly encourages breaking of the law - by showing the driver exceeding the speed limit on registered roads, and perhaps evading police. a car manufacturer that did that would have to answer for it as well.
this ruling ISN'T a big thing. it just seems that Streamcast wasn't careful with it's advertising techniques, it would have all been avoided if they had a more legally robust official stance on illegal file sharing. something like a legally tight and robust version of a "we here at Streamcast Networks do not condone the use of our products for unlawful activitys" policy.
they should have known as it is in all lawyering/political battlefields. you have to ALWAYS keep your TRUE motives hidden, admit nothing, deny everything. oh and encode your internal memos
they got cocky and said their true motives in a manner that was provable in a court of law.
its the same with anything like this. as long as you don't advertise it's ability to specifically break the law, then you are ok.
a car manufacturer that advertises a car in a manner that specificly encourages breaking of the law - by showing the driver exceeding the speed limit on registered roads, and perhaps evading police. a car manufacturer that did that would have to answer for it as well.
this ruling ISN'T a big thing. it just seems that Streamcast wasn't careful with it's advertising techniques, it would have all been avoided if they had a more legally robust official stance on illegal file sharing. something like a legally tight and robust version of a "we here at Streamcast Networks do not condone the use of our products for unlawful activitys" policy.
see the bit i bolded? that's the crux. it has to be provable that you have promoted it's abilitys to infringe copyright - which i guess Streamcast Networks did (oopsy).Mr Judge, in his ruling wrote:"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
they should have known as it is in all lawyering/political battlefields. you have to ALWAYS keep your TRUE motives hidden, admit nothing, deny everything. oh and encode your internal memos
they got cocky and said their true motives in a manner that was provable in a court of law.
yay! more government control and encroachment!
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
This is like holding gun manufacturers liable for the crimes that are commited with their products.
C'mon people.. wake up and stop this crap before it gets too far out of hand.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."
This is like holding gun manufacturers liable for the crimes that are commited with their products.
C'mon people.. wake up and stop this crap before it gets too far out of hand.
no, not really.. Blaming a company for the actions of their customers, even if they claim that their handgun is the best at dropping a person would get an incredulous response from anyone with their head on straight. Just like trying to hold McDonalds liable for a customer getting fat from their products.
You know it's a gun. you know it can kill if you aim it at a certain part of the body. You know you're braking the law when you do it. But blaming a manufacturer for causing the death of a person, even though the company has no control over the person responsible for the shooting? that's ludricous.
Some gun shops actually do advertise the stopping power of what they carry, although I don't know if the same applies to a gun company.
You know it's a gun. you know it can kill if you aim it at a certain part of the body. You know you're braking the law when you do it. But blaming a manufacturer for causing the death of a person, even though the company has no control over the person responsible for the shooting? that's ludricous.
Some gun shops actually do advertise the stopping power of what they carry, although I don't know if the same applies to a gun company.
i don't know about that ferno. your little "they claim that their handgun is the best at dropping a person" clause makes it sound like aiding and abetting "dropping a person" (assumed as meaning murder) to me.Ferno wrote:no, not really.. Blaming a company for the actions of their customers, even if they claim that their handgun is the best at dropping a person would get an incredulous response from anyone with their head on straight. Just like trying to hold McDonalds liable for a customer getting fat from their products.
You know it's a gun. you know it can kill if you aim it at a certain part of the body. You know you're braking the law when you do it. But blaming a manufacturer for causing the death of a person, even though the company has no control over the person responsible for the shooting? that's ludricous.
Some gun shops actually do advertise the stopping power of what they carry, although I don't know if the same applies to a gun company.
if you advertise a product's ability to murder, you are then assumed to be selling this product to murderers. why else would you advertise it as such? the only logical conclusion is that you want to sell to murderers.
you are condoning the behaviour - there's nothing wrong with this however - it's perfectly legal.
it becomes illegal when you knowingly (ie: "prior knowledge" proven via your prior advertising obviously designed to ATTRACT murders) sell the weapon to murders. this in a court would be taken as knowingly "aiding and abetting" in a murder.
you can't deny the assumption that you are selling to a murderer - if you specifically advertised for your weapon to do just that (something i doubt a legitimate gun manufacturer, selling to the public, would EVER do).
it's similar to someone approaching you asking you to build them a weapon so they can kill their wife. the difference is that it's you approaching (mass advertising to attract) the would-be murderer, offering your wares, instead of him approaching you. see?
given the way you worded it ferno:
"Blaming a company for the actions of their customers, even if they claim that their handgun is the best at dropping a person would get an incredulous response from anyone with their head on straight."
one way to argue outof it would be to question the meaning of the expression "drop a person". and question whether there is actually any LEGITIMATE LEGAL interpretation of that expression. there well could be: it could somehow mean non-lethal means of stopping someone (in which case you'd just up for an aiding & abetting an assault charge. unless you could further argue for a LEGITIMATE LEGAL use for an assault device - perhaps by labeling it a self-defense device). it could also mean to kill/assault someone legally - in the hands of someone with a licence to use lethal force (police/governments/armys/etc).
phew
(disclaimer: this post is neither condoning nor condemning gun use or sale. if you got another impression then you read it wrong or skimmed.
the post deals with issues of ADVERTISING.)
"Some gun shops actually do advertise the stopping power of what they carry, although I don't know if the same applies to a gun company."
Stopping power isn't an illegal action, but a legitimate selling point. Murder, on the other hand, is illegal. If you promote your product's use in murders, you are in effect saying how your product should be used.
Stopping power isn't an illegal action, but a legitimate selling point. Murder, on the other hand, is illegal. If you promote your product's use in murders, you are in effect saying how your product should be used.
Ferno, you seem to be saying that a company can create a network file sharing program, promote it's use as an unlawful distribution network for copyrighted material, and not be held liable for the unlawful distribution of copyrighted material. A Bittorrent tracker site could run TV commercials on MTV saying "Save your money, download the latest Brittany Spears CD FREE from our site," and nobody should be able to do anything to stop them.
Don't you see the problem with that?
It's why Head Shops sell 3 foot glass water pipes for tobacco use only. (for an example from yesteryear - who knows how bongs can be classified now with quasi-legal dope) You can't promote the illegal use of your product and not be held liable for the illegal use of your product.
This isn't some new theory enacted by the recent SCOTUS ruling. That's why the ruling isn't shocking or crazy.
Don't you see the problem with that?
It's why Head Shops sell 3 foot glass water pipes for tobacco use only. (for an example from yesteryear - who knows how bongs can be classified now with quasi-legal dope) You can't promote the illegal use of your product and not be held liable for the illegal use of your product.
This isn't some new theory enacted by the recent SCOTUS ruling. That's why the ruling isn't shocking or crazy.
I would think they aren't responsible for their customers' actions, but they are advertising very irresponsibly, for which they could be taken to task... but that's just my opinion. (More on the gun argument than the file-sharing one but perhaps could apply to that.)
Trying to sue BitTorrent over this would be rather amusing. Because, actually, that's not what the service is for.
Trying to sue BitTorrent over this would be rather amusing. Because, actually, that's not what the service is for.
Yes, I realize what you're getting at Vander, but what I am saying is if you hold a company liable for every action their customers do, it will turn into a giant mess.
(now I realize this example may sound rediculous, but play along for a bit.) Imagine if every McDonalds corporation was told to train their employees to supervise all their customers drinking coffee because they may hurt themselves. That would turn out to be the most expensive happy meal anyone's had.
I guess i'm a big advocate of personal responsibility is all. It's why I believe treating a corporation as a person was a bad idea to begin with. It doesn't need rest, and it's not a sentient being. so what makes it human?
(now I realize this example may sound rediculous, but play along for a bit.) Imagine if every McDonalds corporation was told to train their employees to supervise all their customers drinking coffee because they may hurt themselves. That would turn out to be the most expensive happy meal anyone's had.
I guess i'm a big advocate of personal responsibility is all. It's why I believe treating a corporation as a person was a bad idea to begin with. It doesn't need rest, and it's not a sentient being. so what makes it human?
but holding companys responsible for what their customers do isn't what this is about. it's about holding the company responsable for what it endorses it's product to be used for.
for your macdonalds illustration to be true to point - macdonalds would have to be advertising like such: "come to macdonalds and throw our scolding hot coffee over one another! it's mac-fun!"
as long as macdonalds doesn't endorse scolding yourself with coffee, they are fine.
as long as a gun manufacturer doesn't endorse people shooting one another, they are fine.
as long as a filesharing network doesn't endorse the violating of copyright, they are fine.
to give a further illustration:
tell me... what seperates a baton (weapon) from a baseball bat (sports gear)?
not much really - just advertising.
for your macdonalds illustration to be true to point - macdonalds would have to be advertising like such: "come to macdonalds and throw our scolding hot coffee over one another! it's mac-fun!"
as long as macdonalds doesn't endorse scolding yourself with coffee, they are fine.
as long as a gun manufacturer doesn't endorse people shooting one another, they are fine.
as long as a filesharing network doesn't endorse the violating of copyright, they are fine.
to give a further illustration:
tell me... what seperates a baton (weapon) from a baseball bat (sports gear)?
not much really - just advertising.
And it's use.
Also, there is a company that actually does advertise something potentially illegal. Ferrari. Sounds a little rediculous, right? Well, they actually advertise the top speed of their cars to clients. Now does that mean you have to go at that speed on every street? no. They realize that their customers aren't a bunch of dimbulbs that will try going at top speed everywhere.
Just because they can, doesn't mean they have the right to.
Also, there is a company that actually does advertise something potentially illegal. Ferrari. Sounds a little rediculous, right? Well, they actually advertise the top speed of their cars to clients. Now does that mean you have to go at that speed on every street? no. They realize that their customers aren't a bunch of dimbulbs that will try going at top speed everywhere.
Just because they can, doesn't mean they have the right to.
I'm with roid on this one; I don't see this case as being about personal responsibility. When I first heard about this ruling, I was very upset, but after reading the actual rationale, I think it's pretty sensible. This isn't about someone like the creator of Bittorrent being held liable for what the software is used for (however, the entertainment industry bastards will probably twist it to work that way); it's about software that's specifically promoted as allowing illegal usage. Everyone knows that file-sharing programs are used to download copyrighted materials; the difference comes when the software's creators start to condone said illegal behavior. In my opinion, if you're stupid enough to advertise your product by stating that it aids in illegal activities, you deserve to be busted. Comparing this to McDonald's food doesn't make much sense; their commercials don't say "i'm suckin grease," do they? 
haha, no they don't.
I suppose corporations don't condone illegal activity because of a fear that some tool will get caught and say 'they made me do it'.
just so that there is no lingering questions, I'm agreeing with the decision, albiet for a different reason.
here's another take on the issue: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00799/
I suppose corporations don't condone illegal activity because of a fear that some tool will get caught and say 'they made me do it'.
just so that there is no lingering questions, I'm agreeing with the decision, albiet for a different reason.
here's another take on the issue: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00799/