Entertainment Industry Supporters Have Their Say In Grokster Case
from the odd-couplings dept
Today was the day for the RIAA, MPAA and any random “supporters” to file their side of the story in the Supreme Court’s review of the Grokster case — and it certainly was a random assortment of supporters from President Bush’s top lawyer to various religious groups — not known for being friends of Hollywood. The Solicitor General’s argument more or less boiled down to saying that it was true that file sharing networks could be used for legitimate purposes, but since their main attraction is file infringement, they should be banned. In other words, instead of the “significant non-ingringing uses” test set up by the Betamax ruling, the Solicitor General would prefer a “majority of uses must be non-infringing” test. Of all the arguments made this one seems the most reasonable, until you realize that it’s a silly test. How can you determine just what percentage of use will be for “non-infringing” or “infringing” uses? These things change over time, and many products that start out seemingly for mainly infringing uses turn out to have a ton of non-infringing uses. Simply kneecapping them from the beginning is only going to serve to slow innovation — or drive it to other parts of the world. Religious groups also filed their arguments in support of the entertainment industry which can be summed up (not surprisingly, I’m sure) as “for the sake of the children…” which as someone pointed out here recently, often means they want to treat everyone like children. It’s also the type of argument that usually falls prey to that old unintended consequences problem again. They ban these network, and the really bad stuff that actually does harm children goes further underground and is harder to track down.
Comments on “Entertainment Industry Supporters Have Their Say In Grokster Case”
It it is banned, blame yourselves
I am getting a little tired of all you pro-p2p people out there lamenting the imminent demize of p2p. You downplay the MASSIVE copyright infringement that is the current PRIMARY use of P2P, and you hype up the very minor use (indy bands passing out their songs for free, ISO file sharing, etc).
Lets be honest with ourselves. Every single person I work with that has anything to do with P2P uses it today to download movies.
Now to be totally fair, I don’t believe these people are doing this to save money (other than the odd rental). It is more of a fun thing for them, like a weird hobby.
These people I work with would probably watch the movies in theatres if the movie was cool enough, but most movies today suck.
My point is, P2P is going to get banned because of they way it is being used. Perios.
Re: It it is banned, blame yourselves
Here are a couple things I thought about while reading your comment…
Back a few hundred years ago a miss-understood technology called a ‘printing-press’ was considered by the most powerful media group at the time, aka the Catholic church, to be infringing on the intellectual property of the church. How dare someone create a way for the peasants to disseminate knowledge without the direct permission of the church!
I don’t agree with breaking copyright laws but just because Joe Schmo uses a bus to rob a bank, I shouldn’t be banned from riding that bus. I just used p2p yesterday to download a movie of the first introduction of Macintosh, without p2p I really don’t think I would have found that movie as easily or been able to access it so quickly.
You may be right that many people infring copyrights and use p2p to do it but I should not be punished for someone else’s crimes. Or do you really believe I should be? If you do then I guess we will disagree forever.
Re: It it is banned, blame yourselves
A vast majority of drivers commit some driving-related crime, whether it be speeding, unsafe lane-changes, not-quite-a-complete-stop at the stop sign, etc.
Thus, since almost all users of cars use them illegally, we should ban cars!
Think of the children!
Is Being Underground Bad?
Yes, banning something may drive it underground, but is that a bad thing?
For example, possessing child pornography is illegal, and banning P2P systems will make it harder to find. Is that really a bad thing? Would you argue that possession of child pornography be made legal, because the real harm to children is from the molestor, not the viewer, and allowing people to possess child pornography makes it easier to find the real abusers?
While I believe in the “significant noninfringing use” argument, I also get tired of seeing the P2P supporters seem to bury their head in the sand over the illegal distribution of content. I don’t think that P2P systems should be illegal; I just think the supporters should be more understanding of the copyright owners’ point of view. Yes, you can say they could increase their business by embracing the technology, but shouldn’t they decide how to run their business?
Re: Is Being Underground Bad?
While I believe in the “significant noninfringing use” argument, I also get tired of seeing the P2P supporters seem to bury their head in the sand over the illegal distribution of content. I don’t think that P2P systems should be illegal; I just think the supporters should be more understanding of the copyright owners’ point of view. Yes, you can say they could increase their business by embracing the technology, but shouldn’t they decide how to run their business?
No. The market decides how you run your business. The buggy makers would still like to be making buggies, if they could, but the ability to make automobiles changed all that. The entertainment industry is trying to prevent the production of cars. Don’t you think that’s worth fighting for?
I understand the copyright owner’s point of view absolutely. I AM a content producer, after all. However, I also understand that times change, and there’s a point at which you need to change with the times.
No Subject Given
The problem isn’t whether a business should be able to decide how to run their business, but whether the consumers should be forced to prop up failing business models. And whether a business should be able to prevent consumers from taking advantage of the non-infringing uses of innovative technologies merely on the grounds that the technology can be used to infringe.
No Subject Given
Good luck trying to kill off P2P. With the advent of software like Bit Torrent, it’s going to be a moving target for a long time.