I am in agreement about corporate influence in governmental policies. Weapons can however be used to deter violence. Violence is of course a much greater evil than trademark infringement.

“We hold that 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, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,� Justice Souter wrote.

Wasn’t all this shit based on Grokster’s not putting a “Don’t pirate stuff” disclaimer in?

It just sets a bad precedent for software.  Not to mention logic and reason.

It’s a safe bet if Grokster had been a major $$$ supporter of the president’s campaign, they’d be getting the same cushy treatment as Smith & Wesson.

DOF:

With all due respect, Grokster is not comparable to gun liability cases.  In fact, Grokster is hardly comparable.  Although Kos does a cute job of stirring the pot, the theories for imputing liability to the manufacturer in the two cases is distinct.

Just as a point of clarification regarding Grokster, the Court did NOT say that Grokster WAS liable.  The holding of the case is that Grokster COULD BE liable, not that Grokster is.  The case was as much about civil procedure as it was about legal theory. The court reversed a summary judgment decision in favor of Grokster and sent the case back the lower court for further proceedings. 

I’m not a tech buff so Grokster isn’t that big of deal to me.  I do note that the decision was unanimous, which is unusual. It confirms for me the Court viewed and decided this case as one about civil procedure.

I didn’t say they were comparable, Consi.  I said if Grokster had contributed a lot of money to the Bush campaign, Bush would be defending them.

Of course, if the quality of the music being produced today were higher and the prices for buying a CD were reasonable*, there might not be so much illegal copying going on.  I much prefer having an original CD with the liner notes and graphics than downloading MP3s (even legal ones, such as the ones from Apple’s online music store). 

* I could be mistaken about this, but wasn’t there some class action lawsuit against the biggest record companies over price fixing, and that they had to drop their prices?  When Bjork’s “Medulla” came out, Tower was selling it for $22.99!!  Luckily, I found it for $13.99 at a ma-and-pa CD shop.  Of course, maybe Bjork’s label wasn’t included in the lawsuit.

I know what you mean, Joe.  I stopped listening to the rdaio when I was 14, although I wouldn’t have minded buying CDs.  However, $20 just for a CD, that might only have a few decnt songs at that!?!  You know, once I walked into a Tower and saw a soundtrack CD for ~$20, and the movie on DVD with the soundtrack included for the same price!  Now that I have internet access I buy an average of 1 CD every other month, because I can get them for reasonable prices off of overstock.com and the buy it now features on ebay.  A side note:  if it wasn’t for me sampling music on file sharing programs, I wouldn’t buy ANY CDs; all of my favourite bands--Cliare Voyant, A perfect Circle, Dave’s True Story--I found my randomly downloading songs by genre.  I liked the few songs so much I bought multiple CDs from each artist.

I could be mistaken about this, but wasn’t there some class action lawsuit against the biggest record companies over price fixing, and that they had to drop their prices?  When Bjork’s “Medullaâ€? came out, Tower was selling it for $22.99!!  Luckily, I found it for $13.99 at a ma-and-pa CD shop.  Of course, maybe Bjork’s label wasn’t included in the lawsuit.

Yes, there was.  The money was paid out in spring of 2004 - my wife and I each got $20.  The whole price fixing started after Wally world and Best Buy were selling new releases for $11-12 back in the early 90s. 

I used to buy what I could from Columbia House and BMG when they’d have sales, so I could get a cd for under $6, which included shipping.

Yeah, I do find it ironic and amusing that I can get a movie for less than the soundtrack.  14 years ago, I paid $21 for the soundtrack to Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey.  I remember about 20 something years ago seeing cds for the first time, priced at $18-20.  And people were saying “Oh, the price’ll come down”. 

Nowadays, I just try to buy an mp3 for the most part, unless it’s a band I REALLY like.  Then I’ll buy the whole cd.  There were times that I wanted a single f’ing song, but there was no single out, so I had to buy the whole cd.  Which wasn’t too bad, since I was paying the cd club about the same as what cd singles were going for.

You know, once I walked into a Tower and saw a soundtrack CD for ~$20, and the movie on DVD with the soundtrack included for the same price!

It’s not music, but when I was shopping for a copy of Netscape 2.0 at Best Buy, I found the boxed ware for $40, and then found the big bullet stopping reference book that included 2.0 and some extras on cd for $25.

Consi: the theories for imputing liability to the manufacturer in the two cases is distinct.

Could you elaborate on that?

Of course, if the quality of the music being produced today were higher and the prices for buying a CD were reasonable*,

Sorry, but I think that’s a simplicistic explanation at best, an easy way out at worst.

You’ll always find loads of music that you don’t like, and other will consider awesome. And ‘commercial crap’ is just another way of saying that you don’t like it.

As for the price - even if some prixes were fixed, its still mainly a market price in my eyes. People were/are willing to pay for it.

The reason why I have switched to mp3s is simply utility and a preference for an easy-to-use, all-in-one-folder music library where I don’t have to switch CDs but only have to press a button.

That said, I would pay rates comparable to old-style cd prices if I got real mp3s for it. The digital-rights managment crap with its shitload of unpractical and doubtful restrictions? Forget it? I use allofmp3.com, which is semi-legal (they pay royalities to the song copyright owners, and the site is legal according to russian laws) and therefore at the moment way to go for me.

allofmp3.com.. wow ! da, thats a hella site..

i need to calculate exchange rates..
then figure out syrillic.. looks better than
some of the us sites..

whats the “online encoding” biz all about?

I’m no engineer, but why not somehow code it into the cd that certain songs must be ripped into a specific codec?  You could say all copyrighted, nontradable music would burn as ntm files or something more clever.  Everything else would burn as whatever you wanted and then it would become illegal for programs to swap ntm files or convert them to a tradable format.

I’m no engineer, but why not somehow code it into the cd that certain songs must be ripped into a specific codec?

You just tap the audio data after it’s decoded for playing, with the easiest way using WaveStudio’s “What you hear” input.  If you don’t allow the cd to play on a computer, then you can just feed the audio into a sound card input and make an mp3 from that.

then figure out syrillic.. looks better than
some of the us sites..

Kyrillic. Ah, and yes, the site has a reasonably well-translated english version.

The distinction between the two cases, as Consigliere points out, is significant.  If you make something and encourage people to use it illegally, then ought you have some sort of liability? 

Given that Smith & Wesson is not encouraging folks to go out and unlawfully shoot people, they should be defended against such civil actions.  If Grokster is urging unlawful behavior, then they should bear responsibility.

The trick, of course, is what constitutes “urging,” and to what extent does Grokster need to take positive action (active monitoring of transfers, automated checking of files) to prevent unlawful use of their product, to what extent do they need to take passive action (verbally discouraging piracy), and to what extent need they merely take no contracy action (simply not say, “Hey, you can download pirated tunes!").  The answer to that is prone to abuse (and appeal), but that remains to be worked out.

The problem with the “are you encouraging bad stuff, and thus are liable” fuzziness is that, on the one hand you have the RIAA and other organizations suing the snot out of Grokster, and on the other hand you have organizations and activist groups and individuals and local governments suing the snot out of the gun industry. 

So, let’s turn it on its head—are those folks who are willing to see Grokster blanket immunized from such suits per se (without any serious consideration of whether they’ve encouraged piracy or not) willing to similarly immunize the gun industry?  Shall we say, “Grokster doesn’t pirate music, people pirate music,” and leave it at that?

And, DOF, I suspect it is less that the gun industry has given bunches o’ cash to the party they think will best defend them, than that there are plenty of other donators to and voters for the Bush campaign who believe in Second Amendment rights and personal ownership of firearms.  That can be looked at cynically ("pandering to contributors") or positively ("responding to the constituency").  Whereas it’s probably less likely that Grokster (etc.) contributed to the GOP, and, more importantly, that much of the activist GOP constituency cares about (or even knows anything about) Grokster.

So, let’s turn it on its head—are those folks who are willing to see Grokster blanket immunized from such suits per se (without any serious consideration of whether they’ve encouraged piracy or not) willing to similarly immunize the gun industry?  Shall we say, “Grokster doesn’t pirate music, people pirate music,â€? and leave it at that?

You’re pretty much stated my opinion on the issue right there and I hold the same views about the gun industry. These are tools that can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. I don’t think gun makers should be held liable for the actions of gun owners anymore than Grokster should be held liable for the actions of its users.

That’s why I asked about it having to do with whether or not there was a disclaimer.  I thought that grokster did not put anything saying “don’t use this illegally”, which led to them being open to liability. 

My stance is that users are the ones liable for the illegal use of a legal product, not the maker.

I certainly agree with the last two statements about liability.  If on the other hand, a company produces a shoddy product that results in harm to someone (e.g., Bridgestone tires), then the company should be liable.
Speaking of stupid lawsuits, did you see this?  So, this old woman doesn’t mind if her “precious” grandson sees violence, mayhem, and death, but show some nudity and explicit sex and he is psychologically harmed?!?  Heh, at least she is trying to hide it under “false advertising, consumer deception and unfair business practices”.

Ragman states: My stance is that users are the ones liable for the illegal use of a legal product, not the maker.

Agreed, AND everything that Dave said.

Also, haven’t the telephone/cable/satellite companies always been held blameless for all the conversations, porn, warez and other “legally challenged” material that crosses over and through their networks?  The “Harmless Carrier” argument?

File sharing P2P networks - like the telephone/cable/satellite co’s - simply *cannot* keep tabs on *everything* that transpires on their networks, because its not as simple as saying “ah-HA! THERE’S an illegal file!” and then removing it.  Can they be expected to do so?  SHOULD they be expected to?  How would they determine what people are doing, and then decide whether its legal or illegal?

I agree that it’s the users that bear the responsibility. I hold very little truck with the “the devil made me do it” defense.

That said, marketing something specifically for illegal use ought to carry some sort of liability.  If S&W were selling guns with ads that said, “Take out your Mother-in-Law” or “Guaranteed to help you rob banks,” I’d think there should be some civil liability.  If Ford sold trucks as “The Preferred Drive for Underage Kids to Pick Up Girls,” I’d expect law suits.  If Coors ran ads showing kids at the local high school downing their Silver Bullets and having a great time, I’d expect some court action, too.

So, *if* it is proven that Grokster intentionally advertised their P2P software as “a great way to rip off music from its copyright holders” or “yes, you, too, can be a software pirate,” then I think they should be liable in some fashion.  I suspect my idea of what qualifies as “intentional” and “liable in some fashion” differs from what the RIAA would say, but that’s neither here nor there.

It’s a safe bet if Grokster had been a major $$$ supporter of the president’s campaign, they’d be getting the same cushy treatment as Smith & Wesson.

DOF: You missed the whole point. It’s a safer bet that if the music and movie industries weren’t lobbying so hard to protect their interests that the Grokster issue would be a non-issue.

I also disagree that Bush (and most other GOP members) would support Grokster if campaign contributions were made. I’m sure the unregulated P2P networks filled with porn, pirated software, viruses, and terrorist communcations (wink) would get the cold shoulder from Republicans. Just like the gun lobby does from most Dems.

I think the comparison is flawed. Grokster and the other P2P networks aren’t regulated and controlled like the gun industry, and comparing an industry that produces tangible goods with a communications service is a real stretch. A better comparison would be legislators protecting the gun shows where guns can be illegally purchased or traded. Of course, Grokster has a much higher percentage of illegal traffic than the gun shows where background checks are (usually) done.

DOF: You missed the whole point. It’s a safer bet that if the music and movie industries weren’t lobbying so hard to protect their interests that the Grokster issue would be a non-issue.

I also disagree that Bush (and most other GOP members) would support Grokster if campaign contributions were made…

Probably did.  I’m trying to picture the alternate universe in which Grokster and their main constituents put NRA-level of support behind Bush and he says; “Thanks but no-thanks.”

The Bushies seem perfectly happy with almost anything that kills adults.  But anything that dings their corporate sponsors, well that’s a different deal altogether…

If S&W were selling guns with ads that said, “Take out your Mother-in-Law�

Shit.  I liked this keyboard too.  Now it’s all sticky with Coca Cola.

Try one of these keyboard condoms on your next keyboard!  They’re pretty nifty.

OK, they’re not really called “keyboard condoms”.  But they should be.

OK, they’re not really called “keyboard condomsâ€?.  But they should be.

I’ve been calling them that for the past decade.  Of course, just think how many people would freak over that phrase if they really did call them keyboard condoms.  Might conflict with the abstinence only program. 

On the other hand, if it’ll make some of the anti-sex prudes out there boycott their computers, it might not be a bad thing…