ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, June 27, 2005

Finally, an Answer - but an unfortunate one

Well, ">SCOTUS answered the question I posed to them back in March...

And they said "Peer-to-Peer? What are you talking about?!?



Malkin is covering as well!

Given the 9-0 ruling on this one, I don't think it matters who Bush appoints to the SCOTUS... If you use Peer to Peer, get out your wallet.

***ARC Brian adds***

Your exactly right Saint. They didnt understand the technology and were only looking at the impact. They felt that the tools are only used for stolen songs, etc., so therefore the technology must be bad. I haven't read the decisions yet, so maybe there is someone that "got it", but based on the 9-0 ruling, I'm guessing they didn't.

The funny thing is, how is a web server or ftp server or any other tool utilized for file transfer between two people (windows file sharing even) not now liable under this decision? Maybe I didnt understand the underlying facts of the Grokster case very well, but I don't remember seeing ads saying "Use Grokster to get your l33t muz@k here!"

Any file transfer tool can be used to transfer copyrighted materials (either illegally or legally). Heck, the cd-rw drive in most computer could be deemed illegal under these rules. All those disk duplicator machines out there could be infringing, no?

This will also not stop P2P activities or copyright infringement itself. The next battle will be on the code itself. If someone writes source code that can be compiled into a infringing product can they be held liable? What about the compiler? How complete does the code have to be? How does the code have to be distributed? If I outline an infringing mechanism (complete with small 6 point type source code) in a full page ad in the NY Times am I liable? Is the NY Times?

As Saint pointed out before, this will simply drive the P2P applications overseas. Its funny becuase the biggest source of copyright infringement was probably not P2P but rather web based. There was a russian website where by you could download as much content as you wanted for a flat fee per month. Was the content legal or not? Who knew? But it was simple. And widely used, since I heard about it from two different sources (and not your typical 3l33t teenager).

More after I read the decisions....

***UPDATE ARC:Brian***
Oops. Thats what I get for opening by big mouth and ranting before reading...I blame Saint. He was pushing me for the big scoop. Hey if it works for CBS why can't it work for me?

See above.

***

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler