If you read the decision you'll note that what Grokster and Streamcast did wrong was the following:

1) They advertised their product as a replacement for Napster AFTER Napster had been found to be an illegal product/operation. By doing so they legally advertised the product as a tool for infringement. Had Grokster and Stremacast not billed thier product as Napster replacements (even if it was) then the Court could not have used that point.

quote:

"hus, StreamCast developed promotional materials to market its service as the best Napster alternative. One proposed advertisement read: "Napster Inc. has announced that it will soon begin charging you a fee. That's if the courts don't order it shut down first. What will you do to get around it?" Id., at 897. Another proposed ad touted StreamCast's software as the "#1 alternative to Napster" and asked "[w]hen the lights went off at Napster ... where did the users go?" Id., at 836 (ellipsis in original).7"

2) The owners of Grokster and Streamcast actually answered e-mails from users who had used their product to download copywritten material. In these correspondences the owners of Grockster and Streamcast actually "gave guidance" to users in how to play the material they had just downloaded.

quote: "rokster and StreamCast concede the infringement in most downloads, Brief for Respondents 10, n. 6, and it is uncontested that they are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files, even if the decentralized FastTrack and Gnutella networks fail to reveal which files are being copied, and when. From time to time, moreover, the companies have learned about their users' infringement directly, as from users who have sent e-mail to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded, to whom the companies have responded with guidance.6 App. 559-563, 808-816, 939-954. And MGM notified the companies of 8 million copyrighted files that could be obtained using their software."

Thus the owners of Grocker and Streamcast knowlingly aided in the use of their product for infringement.

That is why they lost the case. Lesson:

1) Do not advertise y our product for infringing uses. 2) Do not help people with broken files.

I would think this crowd would be savvy enough to know that people will find ways around this

it's like the little dutch boy with his finger in the d***... er, dike ;)

Shhhh... keep it on the "down low"

Napster and the people who used it and Kazaa deserve what they get. Poor slobs.

The courts are corporate shills. Hang 'em high. In case no one noticed cities are now able to buy your property and sell it to private developers almost at will thanks to the "Supreme Court".

"America" is over.

Unless I'm misinterpreting something, the Supreme Court didn't find Grokster guilty, they just said that the Betamax defense isn't carte-blanche and sent it back to a lower court.

You may well be right about the final results, but this decision appears to simply be about the limits of the Betamax decision.

So, if I upload copyrighted content to my web site, and you use Internet Explorer or Safari to download it, does that make Microsoft or Apple liable respectively???

...all the P2P companies need to do is what MactheRipper does - put a warning dialog box on the screen every time the program is started up. "Stealing music is illegal. Don't do it." End of case.

I think you all are forgetting about the part where they struck the betamax ruling down.

All the rest is pure sophistry...the supreme court used conservative language...the supreme court simply remanded it back to trial...blah blah blah.

when they struck betamax down, they did the damage....you can always look for a silver lining if you want. The Court will always give you a reason to agree with them...if you really want to desperately believe they didn't change things...

but change things they did, and without the betamax rule, expect the lower courts to act...there are simply tons of judges who want to act...they will.

It was mentioned in the P2P case that 90% of the use of the SW is for illegal purposes. You cannot find the same statistic for guns, even handguns. I don't have a number handy but even if all non accidental gun deaths in the United States were with different handguns (they are not), then less than 2/100s of 1% of handguns are used to kill someone.

And no handgun manufacturer advertises "penetration" and "killing power" and all that nonesense. You need to educate yourself better.

yes, and well over 50% of e-commerce in the early days of the internet was for pornography...sad but true, and if the Supreme Court had taken a snapshot in time...they could have struck down the internet as merely being a vendor of pornography.

Only some people could envision that it was going to be oh so much more than that.

Same with p2p, it will someday have almost nothing to do with stealing music. The power of p2p is in distributed computing and bandwidth.

Striking down betamax, over some tiny sliver of time when p2p was initially used for some illegal stuff, is so ludicrous it makes the blood boil.

[i]Well, I'd disagree. Gun makers advertise or promote things related to killing (rate of fire, impact, penetration & stopping power - etc) , and guns (especially hand guns) are designed for one thing - killing.[/i]

Not all killing is illegal. It is legal - and i hope always will be - to kill someone to protect your own life or that of someone else. So the spec's like stopping power, etc. are not about promoting an illegal use of the product. Most guns are never used to commit a crime (nor to kill anyone, for that matter).

there is no legitimate use for a handgun.

that means the bush appointee's can and will arbitrarily rule against any companies, citing this precedent...it's the end of innovation in many important areas of p2p. Comment posted by: Jonathan-Tany

Unless you live in Bizarro World, Bush hasn't appointed anyone. I did notice that the Court also struck down the right of private property ownership. Don't think Bush had anything to do with that either.

"there is no legitimate use for a handgun. Comment posted by: porieux"

Well, actually, there is. There is no real use for someone who can't admit that.

"Well, actually, there is"

Name one, that isn't an attack on another poster....

... ..... ........

thought so.

"Well, actually, there is"

Name one, that isn't an attack on another poster....

Target shooting. Hunting. Cracking walnuts (damn those are hard to open!) Ability to improve one's self-confidence about being weak-kneed and yeller Protection from those who would otherwise do harm How would you describe Superman's speed without one?

yes, and well over 50% of e-commerce in the early days of the internet was for pornography...sad but true, and if the Supreme Court had taken a snapshot in time...they could have struck down the internet as merely being a vendor of pornography.

Why is it sad? Don't you understand that p*** has driven so much of technology. Pornography drove the computer CD industry (I remember reading an article about how, at the time, most CDs being sold were for p*** reasons). They drove the video and DVD markets. Where would we be without 976 numbers?

And unless the pornography that was on the internet was copyrightable material being illegally distributed, there's nothing they could've done to shut it down, since p*** has been shown to be part of free speech (sorry, folks, but sharing up your latest Duran Duran album isn't covered by free speech). And generally the courts have killed laws, provisions, rules, etc, that have tried to limit access to p*** (nix those filters at the library people, the court says you can't do it!).

Only some people could envision that it was going to be oh so much more than that.

Yeah, its also for sending out deals on how to buy drugs really, really cheap!

Same with p2p, it will someday have almost nothing to do with stealing music. The power of p2p is in distributed computing and bandwidth.

Its not about distributed computing (that's done now without P2P). Its something about bandwidth and distribution. But that's like saying the internet now is nothing about p***. But except for some application updates, Linux updates, and such, how much other growth is there in P2P? How many people use it now for legal and legitamate purposes. In fact, does anyone know anyone who uses it only for legal purposes? No, really?

Well I didn't say Grockster was guilty. I merely pointed out how they did themselves in. Again the lesson is pretty clear. Just as apple does with it's iPod. Promot your tool for legal use and do not provide assistance to infringers.

I am not supporting todays decision, btw, but merely dispelling any notion that the decision could be applied to firearms.

I personally think that the decision is not correct, nor the emminent domain one from a week or so ago.

'Target shooting. Hunting.'

He said LEGITIMATE. ie. you NEED to do this, hence you need a gun to do it.

Besides possibly the police and army, NO ONE needs to do any type of shooting.

Hunting...with a handgun? LOL!

Target shooting can be done with bow and arrow, or even a BB gun.

A handgun isn't the only thing that can be used improve self-confidence, and it is probably the wrong choice if the self-confidence desired is for meeting women, getting a job, or anything other than killing something.

Protection against those who would otherwise do harm...like martial arts, door locks, security lighting, strength in numbers, or countless non-violent means won't do?

I do all my shopping at Amunation

I think you all are forgetting about the part where they struck the betamax ruling down.

They didn't. They just said that it wasn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The Supreme Court is out of control, they refuse to interpret the law, but are trying to make law. Just this week they affirmed the governments right to STEAL property from individuals by eminent domain to give it to a private developer. Hopefully, George W. Bush will appoint some conservative judges to the court to reverse this Judicial bs.

By the way, in reference to the comments made on Gun ownership, the second amendment, which expressly guarantees gun ownership, is the "reset button" for opressive government. This was and is the import of the second amendment.

Sebastien: So by your standard for "legitimate", the only thing you have a right to do in life is breath, eat, piss, and p***. Those are the ONLY things you NEED to do. You don't NEED a job, you don't NEED to own a home, you don't NEED to have s**. Do you participate in any recreational activities? Stop right now, you don't NEED to do that. Ride a bike? Give it up now. Own a camera? Sell it now. You certainly don't NEED one. After all, you might use it for illegal purposes!

Please don't make up arbitrary definitions for words like "legitimate use" if you are not willing to apply that definition consistently. Otherwise you are simply showing your extreme bias towards the issue and make it much more difficult for those of use who actually support more stringent gun control laws by convincing everyone else that we are all out to repeal the constitutional right (in the US anyway) to own firearms.

'Target shooting. Hunting.'

He said LEGITIMATE. ie. you NEED to do this, hence you need a gun to do it.

Besides possibly the police and army, NO ONE needs to do any type of shooting.

Hey, then no one NEEDS to use P2P software, because you can get whatever you want from other means. So the whole argument is moot then.

Then again, you don't need an iPod, since you can buy CDs, play music on CD player, etc.

Me, I personally think there's absolutely no need for people to have SUVs, as they are pointless, overlarge, gas-guzzling status symbols. as are BMWs, Mercedes, Inifintis, Ferraris, etc, etc, etc. Everyone should be driving a Ford Focus or a Toyota Tercel.

Drinking should be outlawed as well, since no one needs alcohol. And all it does is promote drinking and driving, which kills and maims a whole lot more people then gun violence.

[i]You don't NEED a job, you don't NEED to own a home[/i]

Kind of like how you don't NEED to post a response with an obvious flamebait, hmm?

The key message is: "...with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement..."

Proving such an object would be a significant challenge for any prosecutor, whether it exists or not. Any sigifnicant quantity of convitioncs on such charges would be clear evidence of an irredeemable Bushist faith-based Justice Department.