sunrise has just told me that its now illegal to download software used to share music, illegal to have use it and that the people that provide that software can be charged for providing it (ie kazaa)

im trying to find more sources on the story, but it doesnt look good!

ok, cant find any online articles about it yet, but its pretty big news, so i guess more info will filter through today

they were talking to an aussie (from desktra) about it, so im guessing these are local laws and not just in the states

oh noes like i didnt see this coming!

yes, but its here now! (apparenly)

sunrise is a good show

mmm, mel hawtness

rolf, sif you'd believe anything this interesting shownig up on commercial news first.

they probably don't even know how to install this stuff, let alone interpret any law made.

Lol Sunrise....I wouldn't take anything those retards say seriously. Until it is from a credible source, I call BS.

i admit, im having problems finding info on this elsewhere

aha!
american ruling though

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.file.sharing.ap/index.html

wonder how this will affect us

but they cant touch BT progs, right?

azzzzzzureus!

well it is used to share music so yer it will be illegal

But we can illegally download these programs off webpages, and sometimes even illegal MUSIC off webpages maens! Quick, delete IE, FF, Opera etc.! But you can listen to illegal music on the COPMUTER!@!1 Set your hard disk on fire or they'll send you to jail!

I guess that means that all forms of online filesharing are now illegal, since they can (and are) used to share music. Quick guys get off the forums, someone might be sharing music right now!!!

the article says " Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally " ... so in my opinion file sharing apps like bittorrent clients aren't going to suffer because they can be used for any sort of data.
the majority of mp3s i dl i get from ftp or irc/dcc... but i doubt u.s. courts have any power to effect either of them :]

*ZING*

Here is the thing...
There was a case used to allow things like peer to peer called the betamax case. Basically it said becuase video recorders can be used for legal activities, they themselves are not illegal simply becuase people can use them for illegal activities.

This new case, basically says becuase something illegal can be done with it, it is therefor illegal.

Now imo we all need to loby to get Microsoft done first. I know I can use ftp to download music, I can use IIS to host music files, I can use MSN to transfer peer to peer, and the winsock stack allows me to use other programs to do it. Then start going after other big completely legal fish. Adobe can be used to read stolen books etc etc

A real world example of this taken away from computers is: You can use a knife to murder someone, rob someone, assult someone... therefor all knives are illegal.

Why don't they make drugs illegal, because sometimes people die from them too! Banning filesharing programs is a dumb idea.

mel=milf

If that is what sunrise said, they're way off the ball.

They're not banning file sharing programs. They're just saying that distributors of file sharing programs should be liable IF they promote them as having the ability/to be used for copyright infringement.

wahey the media got it wrong and is disseminating incorrect information?

you've got to be kidding me?

can we keep discussing how hot mel is?

There was a case used to allow things like peer to peer called the betamax case. Basically it said becuase video recorders can be used for legal activities, they themselves are not illegal simply becuase people can use them for illegal activities.

Obes, I think that this is what you are referring to (quoted from the above article)

Two lower courts previously sided with Grokster without holding a trial. They each based their decisions on the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers who used its VCRs to make illegal copies of movies.

Saying a developer is liable for the application of its product is like saying Weapons manufacturers are liable for the applications of it's products...

Entertainment companies have to learn that their day of overcharging people for a 20 year old physical media product are coming to an end. Once upon a time a CD may have validated the costs they originally charged however now with the ready availability of digital distribution, lower overheads involved with newer, cheaper physical media that they cannot continue to function.

All this litigation is a last ditch attempt to medicate the death throes of an obsolete an archaic industry

last edited by HERMITech at 10:29:09 29/Jun/05

Read this on news.com.au yesterday.

Kazaa is being dealt with seperately from the Morpheus etc suit but this decision by the US Supreme Court can't be good news for them.

btw I met Mel back when she was a journo for Capital TV in the ACT, she's nice :-)

Why don't they make drugs illegal, because sometimes people die from them too! Banning filesharing programs is a dumb idea.

im having some troubles understanding where youre going with that rev

hahahaha, thats terrible logic ^^

but they cant touch BT progs, right?

BitTorrent isn't a network per se - its more like a protocol, like FTP. So no - they can't touch it, unless they find a way to pass a law to make software developers responsible for what users do with their software (which I think they've tried, but failed miserably).

BitTorrent is here to stay, basically.

You'd have to read in detail the actual finding/judgement of the court ie. the wording will determine how it works as a precident. Wether it was the technology or the promotion of that technology...

Cornell
Has something on it... not sure if its the full ruling but meh.

But the bits of interest to me are:

"After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitating copyright infringement, both respondents promoted and marketed themselves as Napster alternatives" that was the evidence for them actively promoting they were good for peer to peer of copyright works. So if any bit torrent site/service/client mentions it is better then napster or grokster, this could bounce on to bit torrent.

"There is no evidence that either respondent made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users’ downloads or otherwise to impede the sharing of copyrighted files." Bit torrent has no such mechanism either.

and

"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses."

So becuase they said "we are a napster alternative", and napster had been found guilty of copyright breaches, they were actively promoting the use of their service for copyright infringement....
If they can get one a single bit torrent site on the "we are better then grokster/napster" thing, it may render the whole technology (device) and anyone who distributes a bit torrent client it in trouble, regardless of its legal uses.

Device by the way means software .. go figure.

Yes thats an extreme view, but then the people going after these things are zealots/fanatics/extremists.

"There is no evidence that either respondent made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users’ downloads or otherwise to impede the sharing of copyrighted files." Bit torrent has no such mechanism either.

You don't download music 'from BitTorrent' - you download it _using_ BitTorrent.

That was the same with grokster trog ... ie. decentralised

And they specifically say if you distribute a device (software) that is intended for the purpose you are screwwwed ...

But I am no laywer (and nor are you)... just the judgement concerns me when fanatics with lots of money can use that with laywers to harass more people doing nothing wrong.

Luckily I don't download any music from the interwebs.

Its not whether you download music or not.

One who distributes a device ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.

Not a huge leap to "One who creates a device".

Sure grokster needed a kick in the ass, but the wording of the ruling it more important then the case its self.

"After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitating copyright infringement, both respondents promoted and marketed themselves as Napster alternatives" that was the evidence for them actively promoting they were good for peer to peer of copyright works. So if any bit torrent site/service/client mentions it is better then napster or grokster, this could bounce on to bit torrent.

I thought the reason Napster got sued is because the way their P2P model work(s|ed) lead to them knowingly facilitating copyright infringement. Because Napster knew exactly who was sharing copyrighted material, who was pirating it and (most importantly) they provided a matching service for both parties to collaborate in illegal activities.

For those that don't know; When you connected to Napster your client would connect to Napster and update Napsters Centralised Index of songs your client held. Modern p2p technology doesn't work like that. In fact most systems just flood the network with requests looking for the search.

sunrise has just told me that its now illegal to download software used to share music

well I guess that makes every single OS on the planet that allows internet access illegal then since they can, in turn, be used to share illegal material. http://users.bigpond.net.au/ritsuko/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

last edited by whoop at 20:06:59 29/Jun/05

file sharing apps like bittorrent clients aren't going to suffer because they can be used for any sort of data.

Exactly. The guy who made BT designed it to sell to companies for distributing files. Companies like Blizzard use it for the WoW updates. It would be too hard to shut down BT.

If the entertainment industry had their way we'd be computerless, VCRless, MP3playerless and all be watching encrypted TV channels on proprietary sets listening to commercial CDs on proprietary CD players and dishing out $15 per person for movie tickets

and dishing out $15 per person for movie tickets

So they have their way, right?

^^ ha, was thinking the same thing.

sounds like the rule is trying to draw a line where the lack of defined line was exploited, specificaly people making p2p programs to get warez easier. although by itself not a bad thing (just need some sort of waver and some legal advice) its also a step in the direction that would make any multi user application be hell for a programmer, and there for avoided.

imo its a step in the wrong direction, the way i belive it should work is that the companies that are on the reciving end of software infringement should take the infringer to court. not the RIAA taking software companies to court.

its like (to me) saying that people who write up shopping lists for bombs should be punished if people use it the wrong way.

Just heard the RIAA have filed against 800 more people in the US (Source: TripleJ news)

At what level were these people involved in? Had a few mp3zon their computer? Or were they all involved in running websites, sharing etc... ? Perhaps selling pirated CDs?

last edited by Idol at 16:16:25 30/Jun/05

As of tomorrow it will be illegal to download music in Sweden. They have been splashing adverts everywhere(here)about it. Srange thing is they only say music, not anything else and from what i can understand of the law it DOES only mean music, not video or anything else.

its the beginning of the end!