Solicitor General, conservatives back Hollywood

TalkBack 38 of 105:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Only a fool will ignore the truth/reality: you said " I had to connect to duke.edu to find the list of peers that had what I wanted to download"

that's not illegal - even if peers are hosting illegal material the list is a legal list. It's not up to duke to go through a list to see if a person on the web is legally sharing a file. Duke.edu could be using p2p 100% legally(not offering any illegal content). They have no control over other peers on the internet. It's like saying one ISP can filter out every website or other ISP and making sure they post legal material (not possible). It's like asking a corporation or business bahave as though they are the police (they are not).

one further note
How does a downloader know for sure He/she is downloading illegal material? lets say I go to a website that sells your product. I buy it - I figuring it legal (but it's not). I have infringed have I not. The seller has definitely infringed. I may never know that I infringed, but if I sell the product (1st sale doctorine) I become a distributer of illegal material. In my country if you download a copyrighted product (because the onus is not on the end user to determine legallity of the product - otherwise a person would have to see whether every web page has legal content or not), the download is legal. Since the 1st sale doctorine is also in place you have every right to sell for the same price or less ,the product to another person. In p2p if it's offered for free He/she has every right to do the same legally (because the courts here have said that if it is publically available for whatever reason the end user can dl and offer it freely - it's not the onus of the person to know find out if the copy is legal - he has the right to assume it). The courts here basically said you have to catch the initial infringer only (everyone else is free and clear). Otherwise everyone can get sued everyday for infringing on someones work.

And as for your post I read it all. I was trying to clarify a poor description of your analysis of p2p.

what I figure is the supreme court in this case will find that the p2p apps do cause primary or secondary infringement or third case infringement.
They will probably come to same conclusion that they did years ago when a similiar ruling was made "can you remember it" - it was the radio. They ruled for "vicarious infringement" - resulting in the courts inplementing SOCAN fees.
Lets face it p2p is software - the developers have no control over what users do with it(same as hand gun analogy - otherwise gun manufactures would have to watch every person using his gun to make sure he uses it legally). The lower courts agree with that reasoning. The lower courts have also resoned that even if you do force the business to filter. It cannot cost the biz big $$ to force them out. The filter cannot stop free speech rights (has to side on error of letting stuff through (for every instance of free speech denial - the filter is to be made weaker). This would result in making filters useless, I know Im a programmer. An chasing them out of biz is no answer , because then you have no control of the p2p software out there already and its distribution. People will share the p2p apps, open source archives outside your country jurisdiction(where it is legal) will host them.

Start using your brain.
1. use DRM for now (short term solution)
2 sue users individually if you have to (I wouldn't)
3 adapt to a new distribution scheme before you become a dinosaur (this is the only course to take)

and using that you will find
1 a)drm chases customers away.
b)DRM cause media to fail
c)drm causes portability/transfer ability loss

2 )suing users scares customers and makes them mad - more loss

3) ability to make profit and save distribution and manufacturing cost. There are billion out there even $1 from each person from your software could make you billions (ads could even pay for it).

Finally, use some decorum when posting. I did not insult you. Call me crocky fool, it's you that comes off that way for not understanding copyright law or other court rulings; Posted by: twinkler@... Posted on: 01/26/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use