P2P makers can be sued
Discussion
[url]P2P coders sued |http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4629761.stm[/url]
Is it right that the makers of P2P software can be held accountable for what the users of the software use it for?
If so, where do you stop? Could car manufacturers be given speeding fines because their cars can break the speed limit? Should the US government be held accountable for providing Bin Laden with the means to kill US citizens? Can things now be banned because they can be used to break the law?
Is it right that the makers of P2P software can be held accountable for what the users of the software use it for?
If so, where do you stop? Could car manufacturers be given speeding fines because their cars can break the speed limit? Should the US government be held accountable for providing Bin Laden with the means to kill US citizens? Can things now be banned because they can be used to break the law?
Einion Yrth said:
As much as i like using P2P software myself, its purpose is clearly indefensible.
Except that the BBC have been experimenting with a BitTorrent like system for the distribution of their programmes.
99.99% of users use it for piracy currently, the P2P software makers aren't oblivious to this fact.
Yes it does have legitimate uses, but at the moment its being used generally to pirate things.
Im not defending the outcome of the courts by the way, i think its rather stupid myself. The guilty people are the millions who use the P2P networks for illegal file swapping.
scorp said:
The guilty people are the millions who use the P2P networks for illegal file swapping.
Which, whatever the legal and moral arguments, ain't about to stop, this genie is well and truly out of the bottle, the RIAA and similar organisations have already lost, they just haven't noticed yet.
Einion Yrth said:
The guilty people are the millions who use the P2P networks for illegal file swapping.
Which, whatever the legal and moral arguments, ain't about to stop, this genie is well and truly out of the bottle, the RIAA and similar organisations have already lost, they just haven't noticed yet.
Technically its easier to shut the networks down than chase millions of IP addresses and sue them.
This law shouldn't affect any closed (controlled) network like the BBC's you mentioned so people can't claim "it's stifling progress".
One other problem with P2P in regards to piracy is that it defeats the argument that people would buy more music from retail if prices came down. The problem is P2P makes it so easy to obtain music that it far outweighs the effort to make a trip into town to purchase it. You virtually couldn't give it away for free. Maybe a hardcore of music fans would buy the music, but generally, most people would be too lazy imho.
Einion Yrth said:
The guilty people are the millions who use the P2P networks for illegal file swapping.
Which, whatever the legal and moral arguments, ain't about to stop, this genie is well and truly out of the bottle, the RIAA and similar organisations have already lost, they just haven't noticed yet.
Not really.
All of these P2P projects have a central control unit, whether that is a central database or a set of developers. Each time they have had a central point that can be legally atacked.
The genie isn't out of the bottle until a better but less centralised system is devised. That can hide the tracks of the users as they come and go.
Apparently Micro$oft is developing it's own version as well.
Should MP3 ripping software be banned as I would say that most of the time, these programs are used to copy other peoples cd's. At best, MP3 ripping software is a grey area which is mostly covered by the "fair use" clause in the States.
Should MP3 ripping software be banned as I would say that most of the time, these programs are used to copy other peoples cd's. At best, MP3 ripping software is a grey area which is mostly covered by the "fair use" clause in the States.
tinman0 said:
The genie isn't out of the bottle until a better but less centralised system is devised. That can hide the tracks of the users as they come and go.
When this becomes necessary, it will exist, most of the technologies needed to create it exist already as parts of other things.
tinman0 said:
Not really.
All of these P2P projects have a central control unit, whether that is a central database or a set of developers. Each time they have had a central point that can be legally atacked.
The genie isn't out of the bottle until a better but less centralised system is devised. That can hide the tracks of the users as they come and go.
Designing that into a network would demonstrate to a court of law that it is your intention to break the law and get away with it. I can't think of a good enough reason for having it, m'lud
>> Edited by scorp on Tuesday 28th June 14:56
robdickinson said:
As much as i like using P2P software myself, its purpose is clearly indefensible.
I download official blizzard world of warcraft patches via P2P, thats verry defensable.
You are in a very small minority if thats all you claim to ever use P2P for. There are very good odds that you would of used the very same technology to download an mp3 or some other illegal media, that is what the courts care about.
tycho said:
Apparently Micro$oft is developing it's own version as well.
Should MP3 ripping software be banned as I would say that most of the time, these programs are used to copy other peoples cd's. At best, MP3 ripping software is a grey area which is mostly covered by the "fair use" clause in the States.
The worlds Ipod users wouldnt like that.
90% of my music I have on mp3 I own on CD, and I use both liberaly, CD at home, mp3 on the move, I'm not breaking the law at all.
The 10% I dont own on CD I either dont listen to, released legaly by the bands, will buy sometime soon, or plain isnt available to purchase.
Sure illigal sharing of music isnt a good thing for the recording companies, but they've played the market and mistreated their customers and frankly ripped them off for years (I was in the 'biz' when CD's launched, talk about a ripoff market).
Recently I've sent many 'CD's' back to play.com etc because there copy protected and arnt legal whit book CD's, I will not, as a paying customer, be treated like a theif and have my fair use rights trampled over. Also sony in Japan has stoped copy protecting CD's because they make far more cash of uncopyable MP3 players than music.
Oh and I see HVM's profits are up...
robdickinson said:
Apparently Micro$oft is developing it's own version as well.
Should MP3 ripping software be banned as I would say that most of the time, these programs are used to copy other peoples cd's. At best, MP3 ripping software is a grey area which is mostly covered by the "fair use" clause in the States.
The worlds Ipod users wouldnt like that.
90% of my music I have on mp3 I own on CD, and I use both liberaly, CD at home, mp3 on the move, I'm not breaking the law at all.
The 10% I dont own on CD I either dont listen to, released legaly by the bands, will buy sometime soon, or plain isnt available to purchase.
Sure illigal sharing of music isnt a good thing for the recording companies, but they've played the market and mistreated their customers and frankly ripped them off for years (I was in the 'biz' when CD's launched, talk about a ripoff market).
Recently I've sent many 'CD's' back to play.com etc because there copy protected and arnt legal whit book CD's, I will not, as a paying customer, be treated like a theif and have my fair use rights trampled over. Also sony in Japan has stoped copy protecting CD's because they make far more cash of uncopyable MP3 players than music.
Oh and I see HVM's profits are up...
Exactly, I use MP3 rippers to put stuff on my iPod and never use it to copy other peoples cd's but where will this stop? They may never go back and stop ripping software but will it stop other innovations because they could be used for illegal purposes?
Einion Yrth said:
The genie isn't out of the bottle until a better but less centralised system is devised. That can hide the tracks of the users as they come and go.
When this becomes necessary, it will exist, most of the technologies needed to create it exist already as parts of other things.
It does already exist - the latest bit torrent software (albeit still in beta) does not require a host for tracker files.
www.bittorrent.com/trackerless.html
I'm sure it's fair from perfect but it does seem that the people who produce these systems are again one step ahead, possibly because they can see the next threat before it arrives.
Cheers
Paul
not condoning use etc etc
robdickinson said:
Recently I've sent many 'CD's' back to play.com etc because there copy protected and arnt legal whit book CD's, I will not, as a paying customer, be treated like a theif and have my fair use rights trampled over. Also sony in Japan has stoped copy protecting CD's because they make far more cash of uncopyable MP3 players than music.
Oh and I see HVM's profits are up...
So, you refuse to purchase all DVD's then ? they have CSS and most have macrovision, which insinuate some consumers are thieves. Retail VHS's also use macrovision (which conforms to no standard) did you refuse to buy any of them too ?
I guess all modern video gaming systems are off limits to you aswell, since all of them, even down to the peripherals have some form of security to stop you copying their media.
BTW, its Red Book standard for CD-DA, the White Book is for VCD
robdickinson said:
The worlds Ipod users wouldnt like that.
90% of my music I have on mp3 I own on CD, and I use both liberaly, CD at home, mp3 on the move, I'm not breaking the law at all.
The 10% I dont own on CD I either dont listen to, released legaly by the bands, will buy sometime soon, or plain isnt available to purchase.
Actually technically speaking ripping legal CD's is illegal. Thats the crux of the problem. The music giants want you and I to purchase our music according to the player / system. In fact several of the big ones from the US have already stated that they expect customers to buy a CD for home and buy the album online for their MP3 player. Quite shocking that they have such distain for their customers..... profiteering in the extreme!
They quote the "right to use" license that you agree to when you open a CD up and that says what you can and cant do. But, its a legal minefield and I cant see any music publisher prosecuting anyone who happens to buy CD's and rip them onto their portable player.
The bigger issue here is that these producers want to control what we can and cant do. Ok, so some of the activity is illegal (file sharing). But if they had their way they would prevent us from a hell of a lot of things. In fact for the pursuit of profit they would look to stiffle technology and customer choice.....
Tip of the iceberg I am afraid. It will get a lot more serious and bitter before its resolved.
scorp said:
So, you refuse to purchase all DVD's then ? they have CSS and most have macrovision, which insinuate some consumers are thieves. Retail VHS's also use macrovision (which conforms to no standard) did you refuse to buy any of them too ?
I guess all modern video gaming systems are off limits to you aswell, since all of them, even down to the peripherals have some form of security to stop you copying their media.
BTW, its Red Book standard for CD-DA, the White Book is for VCD
Copy protected DVD's (as they all are I guess) all play fine in every DVD player with the DVD symbol. Likewise CD's with the compact disc symbol. Copy protected NON CD's dont, thats false advertising, its not the product I intended to purchase.
As DVD's are technicaly software I believe UK law allows me to make one backup copy too, protected or no.
Fair use in the Uk allows me to buy a CD and listen to it, or a copy of it, or an mp3 of it I believe, I will not put original CD's in my car nor cart them round with me for mobile music.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff