One word: Money.

Well, if you are a subscriber to the man as machine philosophy, and personal responsibility does not exist, as some would have it, yes. We would need to get rid of all implements of possible harm. For instance, this pencil on my desk in front of me, could very well, somehow, get jammed into my nose. don't laugh. Its the same thing.

If one does not have the abilitly to commit a crime, to be given the choice, one is not free. Of course, there are a few who believe 'we the little people' shouldn't be given the freedom of self thought, because they have it all 'figured out.'

File sharing is not protected constitutionally, the 2nd amendment is. (for now)

Okay, here is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, verbatim:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Eric, I believe is you read what I actually said, you will find no mention whatsoever of infringing on the rights of citizens to keep and bear Arms; let's try to stay on subject.

I'm hoping that this ruling's upside is a possible legal attack on gun manufacturers' self-serving belief that the average citizen should have access to more and more destrucive and efficient weaponry. But the ruling was intentionally very tightly defined as "...with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright." The linking of the two (guns and filesharing) may make conceptual sense, but probably makes less legal sense. Also, the argument that will most likely be used to dismantle an attack on gun manufacturers: ownership of guns has its own Amendment*. Whereas filesharing (or its conceptual equivalent) does not. Though the ninth Amendment** would be the obvious retort, I suppose.

As for the case specifically, I'd posit that it's not a matter of valuing one over the other, per se, but a matter of one being a scary new technology that affects commerce in new and unfamiliar ways (to those involved in the legal battle), whereas the other is a long-entrenched political thicket. From my understanding, Grokster really got nailed because they were foolish with their self-promotion. They made it clear enough that violating copyright law through filesharing with Grokster was part of its purpose. If they'd been more mindful (as Apple is with its iPod), they probably would've been able to at least stage a stronger counter-attack. I understand the danger of the ruling, but I'm not sure I disagree with the specific instance that spawned it.

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

**"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What !?

I was implying that gun manufacturers don't matter. It's a matter of personal responsibility. I know 'personal responsibility' has fallen out of vogue, is that why the snide remark? Its the people who get the guns off the street you have to worry about.

Why not attack the intellectual with the one word remark? A lot of thought there.

Eric,

Once again you are changing the subject: nobody said anything about getting guns off the streets. The question was about where the responsibility (or blame) for the use or misuse of technology starts and ends. Crugen's comment addressesd that topic, and did so intelligently.

And exactly who is "the intellectual" to whom you refer, and what was "the one word remark"?

Are gun manufacturers any less liable for what purchasers of guns do with their products

No. Namely because the gun lobby has managed to pass laws in their favor preventing any serious lawsuits against them. ;o)

(But yea, I was thinking the same thing too...is a type designer now liable if someone uses your typeface for a hate-speech poster? Ransom note? Death threat?)

So, RIAA has more money = they win any argument.

To be fair, I think the judges were pretty specific...the software developer is liable *if* they market the product as a tool for infringing copyrights. So, it would seem to me that they just can't explicitely say 'buy this to steal music' and they're OK.

HOWEVER, this allows the term 'copyright infringement' to eventually encompass anything. If the RI/MPAA have their way, just the act of watching someone else's TV will give you 20 years with no chance of parole.

1st reply. "...one word, money"

I'll take me leave, I was a little off topic, but I was going for the heart of the matter.
Thanks for understanding
_

Eric,

I suppose we all have our "hot buttons," and the way the topic was presented may have pushed yours. Sorry: that wasn't the intent.

aluminum: "this allows the term ‘copyright infringement’ to eventually encompass anything. If the RI/MPAA have their way, just the act of watching someone else’s TV will give you 20 years with no chance of parole."

One would hope things don't get that far out of hand, but how about this: I was reading the latest issue of Wired this morning and was surprised to learn that someone actually owns a copyright to the song "Happy Birthday to You," and that the copyright doesn't expire until 2030. If you're a strict-letter-of-the-law person, this means that, if you want to sing the song at a six-year-old's birthday party (which constitutes a public performance, you really ought to obtain (and pay for) clearance from ASCAP. And if you videotape the performance? Another fee for another clearance. Kinda scary.

Yeah, and everybody stop using GIFs. CompuServe is going to come after you. All of you!

The funniest thing, to me, is how much old-school minds (in the entertainment industry) try to twist and contort everything around them to avoid the winds of change, instead of grabbing on to the tail of this ship that's riding the jet stream and profiting in a different way (like preventing their CDs from being copied to iPods). Young media companies/execs who aren't afraid of changing their business model will eventually stomp all over the old behemoths, if the behemoths don't start to integrate change.

Whatever. Eventually it'll either A) change as a means of survival or B) become so draconian as to be ridiculous and then change anyway for pretty much the same reasons. The cat's out of the bag. To paraphrase something I once heard: trying to take something off of the internet is like trying take pee out of a pool.

As for the gun thing, to sue the manufacturers you'd have to show that they intend for the weapon to be used illegally, and since wounding and killing isn't illegal, just murder and assault, you'd be hard pressed to make a case. It's got little to nothing to do with "personal responsibility" (a term that sounds great until you put it into practice, kind of like "corporate accountability"). It's about intent. You'd have to come up with internal documents akin to those used in the cases against the tobacco industry.

to avoid the winds of change

That pretty much sums it all up. The industry would rather litigate the industry into the form they want rather than listen to and accomodate the market.

aluminum, your question about whether or not, by extending the tortured logic of the music industry's argument, a type designer might be held accountable for the uses of his/her typeface is an interesting one. Hate mail is one possibility, but I would like to suggest another: what if someone designed a typeface and named it "Bomb Threat." Then, what if someone actually did make a bomb threat using that typeface. By choosing the name, did the designer encourage the behavior?

what if someone designed a typeface and named it “Bomb Threat.” Then, what if someone actually did make a bomb threat using that typeface. By choosing the name, did the designer encourage the behavior?

I don't think that the court ruling would allow that sort of tangent.

I think that a typeface called Bomb Threat would be totally doable. There is a Linotype Killer. Jonathan Barnbrook named a typeface after the Tomahawk missile. And another one after Charles Manson (though Manson was later changed by Emigre to Mason)…

__
www.typeoff.de

Manson was not [primarily] named after Charles.

hhp

My opinion: People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. Full-stop. And stop hiding behind the clever use and twisting of words.

> Manson was not [primarily] named after Charles.

I remember Barnbrook saying it was, actually, but maybe he left something out.
Could You fill us in?

ƒ

Are the people that sell FontLab liable if "someone" uses that program to make a copy of a font under a slightly different name and sells it for profit?

Is Apple liable if I use Garageband to mix a couple existing numbers and some notes of myself into a "new" song that scores big and makes me a bundle (I wish)?

Are all producers of blank media liable for the "damage" done to record and film companies because their products are mostly used to make copies of copyrighted media and they "promote" that (Is it... or is it Maxell?)?

The Supreme Court is just what it is: a bunch of old out of time geezers that have been blindsided by some overpaid smartass lawyers and who have no idea of what the Internet has become: a repository of free bytes.

My guess is that Grokster cs have -- by now -- moved their operations to other parts of this world where the "long arm of US Law" won't be able to reach them. So who won what?

Holding gun manufacturers liable for shooting deaths is one chosen court tactic at attacking the second ammendment. I'm not sure Eric was off topic at all...

That said, I don't see any gun manufacturers advertising or promoting shooting people - they promote "carrying" as a means of self protection. By the same token, I don't see Gnutella or Grokster or anybody else promoting the sharing of copyrighted materials. What does the Supreme Court see?

Personal responsibility? What a concept. Reminds me of the woman who sued McDonald's for being burned by her coffee. Whoa, you mean coffee is hot and I shouldn't put it in my lap and drive?

On the topic of the music industry. Look at the iPod versus the Walkman. iPod has beaten the pants off Walkman because it embraces the way people are consuming music and then makes a profitable (and protectable with DRM) business model out of it.

"If fonts are outlawed, only outlaws will have fonts"

"I'll give up my sans serif when you pry it from my cold dead hand"

"You can have my wife, my dog, but my serif? NEVER!"

If the record companies truly believe in copyrights and licensing, why is it I have to pay $20 for a CD that I already have vinyl of? Didn't I already pay for the rights to listen to the music? Shouldn't the CD price be just a few bucks just to upgrade the media?

Joe, it's interesting that you bring up the example of the woman and McDonald's, as it's one of the most common 'personal responsibility' horror storiest that gets trotted out on a regular basis, partially because it was trimmed down to its pop-culture news version in retelling and its use for political rhetoric.

The facts of the case can be found here. She received 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body, burns which required "hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years". McDonald's also admitted that "its coffee is 'not fit for consumption' when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk".

The case rested on the idea that A) McDonald's knew that it was selling a dangerously hot liquid that was far beyond the temperature required to be considered 'hot' to people who were driving B) made no move to warn them in spite of other consumers getting burned, and C) had no plans to change the sitution for the benefit of the public's safety. She wanted to settle for $20K, but McDonald's refused, and she ended up with a sum that was a far smaller % than the false $3 Million often repeated by tellers of the story.

While one may still not agree with the ruling, the facts shed light on why this case was actually treated seriously by the court.

Joe,

Please: this is not a Second-Amendment issue. The original proposal never suggested taking guns away from people: it simply asked if gunmakers ought not be held to the same standards of accountability as software makers, if their products are misused. And, no, gunmakers don't promote their products as killing machines – their lawyers would never let them. But if you visit any number of gun review sites (which I did out of curiosity), there are a boatload of folks out there who will gladly tell you just how effective this model or that model is in blowing someone away.

And, in the unlikely event that gunmakers were ever to be held accountable for the lives their products took or ruined, such liability would be probably handled as a civil matter, so the gunmakers would do what the tobacco companies have done – pay big fines, then raise their prices to make their consumers pick up the costs. Then, it wouldn't be only outlaws who had guns: it would be only rich guys who had guns.

Finally, let's put the Second Amendment in perspective. The American Revolution was an armed rebellion against what a significant-enough majority of colonists considered to be tyrannical rule. Thus, the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to ensure that citizens would not be deprived of the ability of unseating any future tyranny, should the need arise. But do you seriously think for one minute that, in today's world, if a sufficiently widespread movement sprung up to unseat the US government by force of arms, that the Second Amendment wouldn't be the first Constitutional right to be suspended? Food for thought...

Very much like freedom of speech, I think it should all come down to personal responsibility. Do I have a problem with lyrics of people like 50 Cent and Eminem? Absolutely. Do I think the courts have a right to intervene and censor their speech? Absolutely not. But I do believe that every individual has an ethical responsibility. The problem is the term "ethical responsibility" is completely ambiguous because it means something different to every individual.

American laws regarding public decency are often defined by "community standards" which in itself is also an ambiguous term. FCC laws state that that which caters to "prurient interests" are deemed to be obscene. I think there is a conflict of interest between laws like this and first amendment rights. Right now the FCC is bullying television and radio affiliates into individual censorship. To me this is an abuse of power and starting a ridiculous police state all because of one little nekkid boobie.

On the one hand fast-food coffee & hot chocolate & tea are always prepared at temperatures beyond what we would do at home so it will stay warm longer. Most people know this. However, in the case of the woman receiving burns, I'm glad that McD's has taken responsibility of their negligence to make the consumer aware by posting on their drive through window a notice. (No doubt in response to the afore-mentioned case.)

Slight switch: There is a forum whose users all seem to use bit-torrent or something similar to share large volumes of fonts. Absolutely insane, really. But, the software can't be blamed for the use. On the other hand the ISP hosting these pirates should be held responsible, especially after receiving multiple warnings.

oldnick wrote:
...The American Revolution was an armed rebellion against what a significant-enough majority of colonists considered to be tyrannical rule. Thus, the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to ensure that citizens would not be deprived of the ability of unseating any future tyranny, should the need arise. But do you seriously think for one minute that, in today’s world, if a sufficiently widespread movement sprung up to unseat the US government by force of arms, that the Second Amendment wouldn’t be the first Constitutional right to be suspended? Food for thought…

Yes, it is a scary thought. I'm not a gun owner, so I'm not worried about anyone taking mine away. (I'm also in favor of strong restrictions on assault weapons.) I'm glad you're mentioning the historical reason that it's in the US constitution. That's the same rationale that has some people buying guns, not giving up their guns.

The bottom line for me, is this:
http://www.bustedtees.com/product.php?name=secondamendment

=)

the software can’t be blamed for the use...ISP hosting these pirates should be held responsible

Should the phone company be responsible for allowing people to commit fraud via the phone?

Darrel, I do think that if the phone company/ISP has been told, repeatedly, that they are supporting a felon and they continue to ignore the information, they should be held responsible.

Wired article on Bit-Torrent: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68046,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Joe, I suppose the article goes to prove that, for all the benefits of our too-much-information age, there are downsides as well. Two things in Bram Cohen's favor: his story certainly has all the earmarks of plausible deniability, and context really is important.

And, Tiff, I agree that a service provider who has been told that the service is being abused ought to take steps to end the abuse, and ought to be held accountable if they don't. Unfortunately, service providers generally get paid for providing their service, so they have an economic disincentive to drive customers off. Business is business, and I am afraid that the way you can induce a company to change the way they do business is to convince them that it will be more costly for them to continue their present course than to change it, and that's not always (or ever) easily accomplished.

I don't know, NIck. Most service providers, in my experience, don't care much about individual customers. They wouldn't think twice about loosing one or two "bad apples" if it protected bigger business issues (like no bad publicity).

__
www.typeoff.de

I can't disclose the details, but some associates of mine were recently successful in shutting down an online font sharing site. Definitely a good thing.

Dan,

The critical detail in your comments is "most service providers..." I would counter that the incredible number of ISPs willing to host the most obnoxious/vile/disgusting websites (yes: the comments is terribly judgmental, and it's all a matter of taste) might lead one to the conclusion that bad publicity doesn't really bother them. But, if you can convince their customers to jump ship, their tune might change...

but what are obnoxious, vile and disgusting aren't always illegal. i think dan and i are stressing the support of illegal sites that are also obnoxious, vile and disgusting.

An interesting type question. Guns, e.g. have many more uses than killing innocent people and while killing innocent people is (generally considered), far more hurtful to Soc. than (c) infringement, Grokster el al have no other purpose than endangering, and stealing artists rights, while just about everyone knows, in a pinch, a gun can make punctuation or ornaments.

The worst pirating app isn't Bittorrent, or Napster, it's TCIP. Maybe the Supremes should take a look at Cisco, and rule against some of their routers. They are facilitating this horrible problem too. Who's responsible for this &@$# internet thing anyway? Let's get that guy.

In all seriousness, though. I would be really sad if someone decided that Bittorrent should be illegal. It's really helpful for people with great content who don't have a fat wallet to pay for everyone to download their stuff when it goes viral. I downloaded a 2.4 GB file from the South by Southwest music festival [read: non-infringing] a few months ago that I never could have gotten without p2p.

There is a puposefully vague statement in that ruling that pretty much allows the court to find any distributor liable:
"…or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement…"
Who defines these affirmative steps? The court. So basically they just say whatever you were doing was an affirmative step, and then you are guilty.

Yet another reason we cannot let Bush pack the Supreme Court with whoever he wants. Republican or Democrat, you have to agree that it is detrimental to democracy.

Democracy? You mean the best weapon in Capitalism's arsenal, the one that can most quickly replace cultural identity with the basest desires of mankind? Think about why these villans you -rightly- detest value Democracy so much...

hhp

Yet another reason we cannot let Bush pack the Supreme Court with whoever he wants. Republican or Democrat, you have to agree that it is detrimental to democracy.

What was the reason?

Not sure that Bush's choice would play a big role here. This decision was 9–0. All judges were agreed.

That was what surprised me most about this decision. Not the outcome, but the unanimity.
__
www.typeoff.de

What was the reason?

A vehement policy that gives preferential treatment to corporate interests over individual's rights.

The court case is being made out to be bigger than it is. The decision was clearly aimed at companies that sell software using the 'sales pitch' that you can infringe copyrights with it.

So, if sony started selling VCRs with the ad campaign 'make copies of your DVDs and sell them on the streets of New York' then they'd be liable.

That said, traditionally, the courts have either simply not understood new technologies and how they should be handled, or the MP/RIAA simply have so much money that they can win any argument simply through bigger/better lawyers. Bush, himself, doesn't necessarily play a big role (though he hasn't stopped things like the FCC from becoming simple Corporate assistants), but folks like Orrin Hatch are the HUGE problem.

You know, thats what I suspected. Anticowboyism is just injecting bush hate wherever he can. Relevant or not.

In all seriousness, though. I would be really sad if someone decided that Bittorrent should be illegal.

Yes. I agree. I also agree that it probably won't happen. In a similar vein, you could consider FontLab. Some people use it in an illegal way, but you couldn't blame the FontLab boys for this. Again, it all goes back to personal responsibility, personal HUMAN responsibility. That is why I think ISPs should be held responsible once informed of the illegal activity.

That is why I think ISPs should be held responsible once informed of the illegal activity.

The problem is what is 'illegal' is being vaguley defined much of the time in the realm of digital copyright issues. Most ISPs will, indeed, shut down any illegal going-ons. But, at the same time, they do have a right, and expectation, IMHO, to provide a level of privacy for their customers as well. Also, when the RIAA is out their making incredibly outrageous lawsuits, I can see why larger ISPs would be less inclined to take them seriously.

Darrel, I don't disagree that larger ISPs should be able to allow their customers privacy. But, don't you think that they should research it to see if in fact the claims are real? If the claims aren't real then the so-called threat is bogus anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4730251.stm
People, the law is about money, not justice.

hhp

f the record companies truly believe in copyrights and licensing, why is it I have to pay $20 for a CD that I already have vinyl of? Shouldn’t the CD price be just a few bucks just to upgrade the media?

record companies thought vinyl would essentially die out with the advent of the cd, and so re-released artists' entire back catalogues on cd to make some more money and revive flagging sales.

the opposite seems to be happening now - vinyl is becoming trendy again, with picture disks, limited edition 7" (or 9" if you're 9inch nails) and back-catalogue items sitting on most large chain stores. and over here in the uk, it's often cheaper to buy the cd than the vinyl. for instance, at hmv one can purchase the cd of british sea power's "open season" fo 8.99, or the vinyl for 12.99.