FileSharing - When the left and right hold hands
The long awaited Grokster Supreme Court Decision is in and they lost, the justices voted unanimously 9-0 against Grokster. Frontman of the band Wilco, Jeff Tweedy, speaks out against the ruling…
“It is sad that conservatives and liberals in the Supreme Court can hold hands and agree unanimously on a decision so squarely on the side of big business and so damaging to the side of culture.”
…one of the many reasons why I’m neither a conservative nor a [American] liberal. Rapper Jay-Z is enthusiastic about outcome…
“This is a great victory for artists, songwriters and all of those who make their living through the creative process.”
Jay-Z made his millions by advocating guns, dope, hoes, murder…but he speaks out against downloading an mp3. Nigga pleaseee… 
This court case wasn’t really about Grokster (for the rest of us) - it’s about the future of P2P and this ruling is a step in the wrong direction on a slippery slope. However, I’m not quite sure I even support Grokster’s actions exactly - Make a copy of your DVD and send it to users online…no problem whatsoever. Now, making millions off the others copying DVDs and sending them to others, there’s where I see an issue.
Grokster makes its millions by selling advertisment on it’s service while people surf for files to download. But I could say the same thing about Yahoo! and Google. Those two search engines are excellent resources for finding copyrighted material (so I’ve heard), yet it’s no problem that they sell advertising. So you’d say, “Well Yahoo and Google are used for other things than copyright material” and I’d say, “Well so is Grokster.” Unsigned bands utilize these type of services to get their music out to the public. Then you might say, “Well Google is only used 1% of the time for copyrighted material while Grokster is used 99% of the time for copyright material” and I’d say, “So if your online service suddenly gets used execessively by P2Pers, you should be shut down?!”
So it’s a complicated issue and although I have my doubts about Grokster, I’m disappointed to see the U.S. Supreme Court rule this way. But one thing I am sure of, when governments and companies hold hands like this…we’re all screwed.
That Yahoo article is funny, you get the picture like p2p is nothing but music. I don’t know much about Grokster, I think it’s de-centralized network? But for ED2K, torrent and other systems there are many small (often non-profit) open source programs available, I wonder what the courts would decide for them.
Also it’s interesting to see what the reaction will be, if the new secure anonymous p2p systems (like Mute or Freenet) grow popular.
Comment by Eino-Kalevi — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 12:39 am
These programs let people trade whatever they have - legal and illegal stuff - and therefore it’s the users who’re doing the illegal thing - not the program or the people behind it. That’s why the decision is wrong. I say track down the worst sharers out there - not the programmers.
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 2:49 am
I think this is a serious blow to innovation in itself - how many innovations will not see daylight because the creators fear of being sued by the entertainment industry. I think it’s sad that one industry gets this much attention and power in affecting the law - what if the defence or weapons industry got to pass all it’s laws through, what about the cigarette industry?
Comment by Antti — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 5:44 am
I disagree on the blow to innovation. This will on the contrary boost innovation. We need secure and de-centralized networks that are finally going out of the reach of legislators. We need encryptions strong enough to take some distance towards any government entity trying to snoop into our privacy. It is our duty as citizens to educate and protect public.
Sure, ok, having illegal mp3’s is bad M’kay - but technical surveillance on your computer equals to technical monitoring (following you on the street with camera) or house-search without warrant. In finnish law it is applied only in hard crime: Treason, Espionage, Murder, Terrorist Conspiracy, Aggravated drug offense. So you want to include warez on this list ?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 9:43 am
I agree with everyone but I believe this court case was not really about the software itself, but the fact that they were making millions off advertisements built in to the software.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 10:04 am
So the artists just got pissed off or just jealous?
Comment by Mikko Sandt — Wed, Jun 29th, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
In what way do the LEFT and RIGHT (whatever these words mean in your mind) “join hands” in this issue?
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Jul 2nd, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
Thomas - the left-wing justices and right-wing justices agreed on this issue.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jul 4th, 2005 @ 12:17 am
“Thomas - the left-wing justices and right-wing justices agreed on this issue.”
Left-wing justice = U.S. Democrat view of justice.
Right-wing justice = U.S. Republican view of justice.
????????????
You can keep complaining about Finland as much as you like, but the truth is: Very few people in Finland are as NARROW-MINDED as you Phil.
Comment by Thomas — Thu, Jul 7th, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
It is not true that left-wing justices are always Democrats and right-wing justices Republicans. Seven of the current justices are Republican appointees and only two Democrat. Because law guides them more than political affiliation, Republican justices tend to drift to the left and Democratic justices to the right. Byron White (a JFK appointee) was at least in the abortion issue a hardcore social conservative in the mould of Scalia and Thomas whereas the Clinton appointee Breyer is sliding toward the right in the issue of the separation of church and state. Right-wingers want to unite church and state, left-wingers want to separate them, this is the way it is in America today. File-sharing is one issue where such a distinction can’t be made, as I believe Phil has been correct to point out.
Comment by Helsinkian — Sat, Jul 9th, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
Helsinkian
“File-sharing is one issue where such a distinction can???t be made, as I believe Phil has been correct to point out.”
In what sense does “being appointed by a U.S. democrat president” as opposed to “being appointed by a U.S. republican president” concerning judges of the “supreme court” of the U.S., reflect itself upon the political spectrum ranging from LEFT to RIGHT? I see no difference between democrats and republicans, at least not given a classical left-right spectrum as the one in Finland. And when it comes to foreign policy, there just isn’t any difference. All the whining about the idiot Bush is pointless. The “democratic” alternatives would have been the same.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Jul 15th, 2005 @ 12:56 am