It's legal, sayeth the judge

[Beldaran]

Very interesting, and I agree with the judge's interpretation (http://www.msnbc.com/news/905306.asp?0cv=CB10)

[AlexMax]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank the lord, a judge with a clue.

[bigjoe]

Great! A victory for the good guys!

[DarkDragoonX]

Originally posted by BigJoe
Great! A victory for the good guys!

AND a victory for the evil guys!

Now I can continue to use such file-sharing software for personal gain. Woohoo!

[C-Dawg]

Lets not celebrate too soon. That's a District Court judge. There are still two layers of appeals at which the ruling can be reversed. In fact, I dare say it's very likely it WILL be reversed. The higher court need only find that the Filesharing companies weren't entitled to Summary Judgment (that is, the Record Companies have enough evidence to go to trial) in order to remand.

-C

[tgf_guy]

This ruling comes as both a surprise and an expectance from me. Common sense would dictate that file-sharing programs are not inherently evil, but the people that use them for illegal purposes are. However, the judges in the past have ruled that the file-sharing companies are at fault, which is completely untrue. Things such as Instant Messenger, IRC, etc. have existed for years, and yet they face no lawsuits, making these cases truely bizzarre.

I enjoy this court ruling. I do not believe those with good intentions should be penalized by the acts of those who engage in such activities, which makes this case a step forward in that idea.

[Ich]

It's about fucking time.

[TheGeepster]

There's a very interesting philosophical question involved here.

At what point does someone become an accessory to a crime (copyright infringement in this case).

People who seek to break a law will try to find a way to do it. But those whose services they use to do so might be unaware of any infringement of the law. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a group can provide the means for someone to break the law precisely in order to make it possible and no other major reason.

Most everyone would admit that the first has no guilt in the matter, due to ignorance. Most everyone, I think would recognize that the latter is culpible because there is not only knowledge of what they are doing, there is also intent.

However, is it not possible that a company might provide a service that does have legal uses, but know that it has illegal uses as well? And if that company doesn't try to combat the illegal uses, knowing full well that a good amount of the usage of their service is being used for those causes, are they then at least partially responsible for what happens? What if they try to curb illegal uses, but only a little?

Just thinking aloud here. Without the specifics of the case mentioned in the article, I can't say whether or not the judge did the right thing. But he may very well have. The fact of the matter is that the most guilt goes to the people whose actions are the direct cause of the copyright infringement, and the culpability of the software company (whether yae or nae) has no effect on that.

[tgf_guy]

Originally posted by TheGeepster

However, is it not possible that a company might provide a service that does have legal uses, but know that it has illegal uses as well? And if that company doesn't try to combat the illegal uses, knowing full well that a good amount of the usage of their service is being used for those causes, are they then at least partially responsible for what happens?

Makers of firearms know perfectly well that, while guns can be used to enforce the law, they can also be used to break it. However, this does not curb the production of firearm companies.

[NerdWarrior]

Bling bling! File-sharers 3 music Industry 14

[Ian]

About god damn time, there should be more judges like this guy

[Menokh]

Originally posted by TheGeepster
However, is it not possible that a company might provide a service that does have legal uses, but know that it has illegal uses as well? And if that company doesn't try to combat the illegal uses, knowing full well that a good amount of the usage of their service is being used for those causes, are they then at least partially responsible for what happens? What if they try to curb illegal uses, but only a little?


Two examples in conventional sales.
1) VCRs and video cassette tapes
2) Tape recorders and cassette tapes.

Both have hundreds of legal uses, but they are commonly used to pirate music or movies or TV shows. It was ruled in the 1980's that VCRs are legal and that companies that make them are not liable for the illegal actions of thier users.

The same is true of modern file sharing programs, so sayeth the judge.

[MottZilla]

So says common sense. :O It's mainly company executive types and such getting screwwed anyway. Afterall, they are the middle man, wanting more than their fair share, and whining like a bitch when they want more.

Afterall, screwwing a mulitmillion dollar company is not a big deal, where as, an individual or small independant group is a big deal.

But ya, they'll just appeal and crap till they get a judge that doesn't know better than to believe them.

[skidphyzz]

Hopefully it won't be only that judge.