Mike McCarty wrote:
Interesting. Google found http://www.grokster.com/ which claims that
it logged my IP address simply for visiting the site. I wonder what
the phrase "unauthorized peer-to-peer services" means?
That's "RIAA-speak." Not entirely accurate, unsurprisingly. It's not
the service that's unauthorized, it's the manner in which the majority
of users used the service that's unauthorized.
Anyway, I read what the EFF has to say, and it's odd what the
Supreme Court ruled.
I see the same argument used repeatedly now, and it doesn't make sense
to me in any of the circumstances I've seen it. For example,
recently we've seen cases where people successfully sue bars for
"letting them get drunk", and even individuals. I'd never supply
alcohol for someone who visited my house because of that.
I've also seen lawsuits against gun manufacturers because someone
misused a gun. When do we get lawsuits against hammer manufacturers?
I don't think it's the same argument at all. SCOTUS held that a service
like Grokster *could* be liable for contributory infringement, it did
not say that Grokster was liable. That would have been a matter for a
lower court to decide, had Grokster not thrown in the towel. SCOTUS
held this in the face of Grokster's claim that it could not be held
liable. That would be like a bar claiming that under no circumstances
could a bar ever be held liable for getting a patron drunk. To my
knowledge, no bar has ever made that claim, and I wouldn't expect any
bar to try. Clearly, there are circumstances in which a bar could be
liable -- for instance, you order a Virgin Mary and the bartender serves
you a Bloody Mary instead. If you're an alcoholic, that's likely a
one-way ticket to a bender. (Of course, if you're an alcoholic, it's
probably not wise to go to a bar in the first place. But there are
numerous occasions where people who can't/shouldn't drink need to be
around people who are drinking.) Grokster was trying to say that it was
not responsible for what its users shared; SCOTUS said it might be, if
it encouraged unauthorized sharing of copyrighted files. If you started
"Mike McCarty's P2P Network" and put up a website claiming people who
used your network could get all the latest Top 40 hits and Top 10 tv
shows and movies and games for free, you likely would be found guilty of
contributory infringement even if you weren't hosting the files on your
servers. To me, that makes sense. If, on the other hand, you started a
network or service akin to Bittorrent and wanted it to be used for
distribution of Linux ISOs and explicitly warned people not to share
unauthorized files, then you wouldn't be guilty of contributory
infringement even if people used your network for sharing unauthorized
files. To me, that also makes sense.
In a nutshell, the Grokster ruling was SCOTUS's attempt to revoke any
P2P network's "get out of jail free" card. It was not an explicit
condemnation of P2P in general.
Back to the original question that started this wayward thread, can't
you access this list on USENET? Here is Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.user?lnk=gschg
Isn't that this list? I subscribe through email, so I haven't tried,
but I was under the impression that you could both post to and read this
and all (or most) Debian lists through USENET. Others in this thread
seem to be saying that it is only an email list.
--
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
