“The Supreme Court handed movie studios and record labels a sweeping victory against file-swapping, ruling Monday that peer-to-peer companies such as Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright piracy on their networks,” John Borland reports for CNET News. “In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled companies that build businesses with the active intent of encouraging copyright infringement should be held liable for their customers’ illegal actions.”
Earlier today, before the decision, “Piper Jaffray said iTunes, the online music-download service from Apple Computer, ‘would be the primary beneficiary’ in its category of a Supreme Court decision against peer-to-peer, or P2P, file sharing. Piper Jaffray noted that iTunes has a 70% market share in online music. ‘We believe a decision against P2P file sharing would be positive for online content distribution companies, as a slowdown in P2P activity would likely lead to a pick-up in sales for legitimate online content providers,'” Forbes reports.
Full article here.
I think this ruling is fair. I personally don’t like it when large companies win things like this, because historically they abuse the power. It seems we are headed to a future where inovation is held back, so companies can nickle & dime the consumer for every little thing they do.
But you know what, we do have a choice. The choice is simple. Choose not to purchase items/services from the company you have a problem with. You might think you are just one person and you can’t make a difference, but you also need to spread the word. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, I don’t purchase music CD’s that have encryption, I didn’t eat at a Jack-In-The-Box for 4 years cause I couldn’t stand there stupid jingle (before jack came back), and I try to look at lables to see where things are manufactured. If it’s china I usually avoid it. I can go without these items. It might not make my lifestyle any easier, but at least I feel I’m doing something about it.
As for you newmsubob, if you choose not to purchase your Star Wars, (which I would almost bet he’s going to release the original versions on DVD in the future at some point, why do it now when he can milk you to buy the others), choose to never watch Star Trek, and whatever else you mentioned, you might not get your “fix”, but you can at least start supporting some individuals/companies that have better consumer-friendly tactics and hopefully others will get the message and follow suit. After awhile the bad companies will either disappear or change their tactics to survive. They play the odds that the average consumer will follow the herd. So don’t be an average consumer.
It’s not the quickest or easiest rode to take, but sometimes you can be surprised by taking the rode less traveled.
V
Hi all,
[prepare for sarcasm… not insults]
Okay then… all of your arguments have convinced me (lol). I guess I’ll get rid of my “SeaQuest DSV” downloads seeing how as of today you can’t legally get the episodes on VHS, DVD, or a tuna sandwich. Oh yeah, maybe I’ll also delete that “Weakest Link” episode I have on my hard drive… goodness knows that NBC or whomever is just jumping at the chance to put that on DVD! I guess that I’ll also get rid of my latest music download, an unauthorized reproduction of the Apple “Switch” campaign’s theme song. I’m sure that I can find a CD of that song on Amazon.com somewhere. And all of those old computer games that are on my Windows box, I’m sure that the term “abandonware” isn’t supposed to signify anything in particular…
[sarcasm over…]
I think you’ve probably got the picture of what my “illegal” collection looks like.
As for my DVD collection, I’d say that I probably spend about US$1500.00+ per year supporting the MPAA via my purchases off of Amazon.com and elsewhere. I also support independent music/movies by purchasing their outrageously overpriced CD’s/DVD’s. So, don’t try and tell me that I fail to support the artists or that I’m not contributing my fair share to the cause. Considering how low my income level is as a college student, I’d call my expenditures more than fair to the industry. In short, I have tried to achieve a balance.
Your criticisms of my examples aside, I have one more for you – this is a true story. Several years ago, I submitted an article to a local newspaper; they published it word-for-word. Now, I was using Google some years later to research my family history when I came upon this article on the Internet. FYI, the newspaper that originally published the article did not have a website at that time. The website in question credited me as the author and hadn’t altered the content of the article, so what purpose would have been served in calling them up and saying, “why didn’t you seek my permission…?” Indeed, in a twist of irony, I had long ago trashed the file containing the article – so I copy and pasted an unauthorized copy of my own article to my computer! If I can live with it, why can’t the artists… or all of you?
Regards,
newmsubob
Great, more litigation, just what America needs. America’s legal and judicial system is a self-fulfilling prophecy – Kinda reminds me of IT managers who keep the company on windows to assure they retain (and expand) their power and staff count. They all try and spin it that there really isn’t a choice – and the majority of people just go along with it.
newmsubob,
Okay, I thought I didn’t have to make any more suggestions until I read your last post.
I think you should also stop using examples, either based on hypothetical or real-life experience. I haven’t seen how a single one of your examples has helped your cause.
When you “submitted” the article to the newspaper you agreed for them to publish it word-for-word and give you credit. How can you possibly feel that they would need your permission to use it again under that same agreement? Did you have a single use agreement with the paper? Please correct me if my assumption is not valid.
Also, as the author of the piece, you making a copy of it regardless of it’s form is not unauthorized. Unless you transfered all your rights dealing with the article to the newspaper. Again, please correct me if I’ve made a bad assumption.
I wish the thieving music companies a lot of luck enforcing the law on each and every PC where P2P is installed. And in the Cayman Islands or Slovakia.
One big fat ‘FUCK YOU’ to those dickheads.
Unless you price a product in the range that a consumer is willing to pay for it, you will not sell your product. If the consumer has another way of getting it, he will get it through those means.
Stop overpricing CDs, MP3s and all other media. THAT and nothing else will stop ‘piracy’.
The paradigm has shifted. Once you purchase a digitized piece of video or music, you need not lose it. In the past, you could expect your analog media to degrade or break; now, you can make backup copies with only trivial loss of quality. The entertainment industry should change to reflect the new paradigm and the p2p phenomenon that makes available anything and everything to anyone and everyone.
There is a successful model for the future: the iTMS. The internet delivery system, by cutting out middlemen, physical media, packaging, transportation, etc., allows the creative industries to slash retail prices without affecting their revenue. That movie you don’t intend to pay retail for (cinema or dvd) might be a buy at, say, five bucks. If that’s the case, their revenue might even increase!
The problem is, of course, “change” or the fear of change. Change can be delayed but rarely stopped. I wonder what the industry will look like in 25 years. Maybe the Oscars will come in black turtlenecks.
Sizewell,
Sorry, I was a little tired when I wrote that example; maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly… the article was originally published in a local newspaper, which did not have any sort of web presence whatsoever at the time.
Okay… then a totally unrelated publication, which did have an Internet presence, put my article on their website. I doubt that this unrelated publication bothered to contact my local newspaper to ask their permission; I certainly wasn’t contacted.
The point I was trying to make is that it’s the content of the article staying intact that concerns me. As long as my ideas stay intact, I could really give a fig who uses it.
Regards,
newmsubob
P.S. @ So What… You’re really not helping “our” cause by using dirty words to make your arguments.
newmsubob,
I don’t know what points you are trying to make. But the personal examples you state for copying others’ materials show you just don’t understand the law. Your example of your newpaper article indicates as such, too. I’m sure this “unrelated publication” didn’t just steal your article from the local newspaper – particularly one that didn’t have web site at the time. Think about it – how would your article exchange hands between publications if it weren’t online?
Just because you don’t give a fig who uses your material, doesn’t mean somebody who makes a living from their material doesn’t give a hoot about their own, either.
If you truly think downloading off of p2p networks is OK, then I suggest you send your name and address to the RIAA and let them know of your activities. You can later explain yourself in court after the RIAA serves you. I’m sure you’ll have no problems in explaining your position.
Hi,
“I’m sure this “unrelated publication” didn’t just steal your article from the local newspaper – particularly one that didn’t have web site at the time.”
The website where I was surprised to find my article was that of a religious newspaper, a statewide publication that also had a website. The article was about a mission trip that I had taken with some members of a local church. I imagine that somebody at the church probably saw the article in the local newspaper and forwarded it onto the religious newspaper. I never did find out exactly what happened.
Many of you have mentioned the people who make a living from the material that they create. In my own experience, there are three types of visual artists… yes images are transferred via p2p just as is almost any other form of digitized media:
(1) There are the ones who are insulted when asked if a picture can be taken of their work. They promptly refuse to let you take photos of their work, period.
(2) There are the ones who allow photos, but simply ask that you give them the courtesy of mentioning their names when showing the photographs to other people.
(3) There are those who say, “take all the pictures you like… maybe my work will inspire somebody!”
While I like to think that I’m sort in between #’s 2 and 3, I can appreciate the perspectives of those who find themselves in the #1 category. I just tend to think that the “Baskin-Robbins” approach of giving free-taste samples is a much more effective way to run any business than is the alternative “you had better make a good guess because your stuck with your flavor” way of doing things. Giving free samples has certainly worked for me in my many ventures!
Regards,
newmsubob
P.S. This will be my last entry in this thread. So, you may feel free to bash me as much as you like :~)
newmsubob, I am not trying to argue a cause, I’m venting my feelings towards the money-grabbing record companies, whilst stating the obvious.
If I have a cause, it would be:
Up with piracy! Not a penny for those swines!