Dissent

The ruling was 9-0

A final thought in the words of an internet blogger Madmax.

"They cant be held responsible, if that was the case then Microsoft should be held responsible also as they made the operating system  that allowed illegal files to be downloaded.."

madmax

CDFreaks Resident

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f83/march-29-grokster-v-mgm-supreme-court-case-132191/

Your Own Argument

My argument in the case MGMs. Groakster is that if a person decides to download material from another user or multiple users the guilty party for infringing on copyright laws is the end user who is doing the downloading. Just because a person or company creates a way or makes the material available to download does not make them guilty of anything. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they want to take a risk and download something they know is copyright protected thats their chance. If they get caught, well, they are in my own words "Fucked". (I know this is not a valid quote but wanted to quote myself)

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like." Justice William O. Douglas

I do think there is a responsibility that the provider of such material should have to disclose that the material about to be downloaded is copyrighted. Some sort of quick pop up window would be sufficient. Something that the up-loader has to click a box agreeing that they know what they are about to do is illegal.

This is a fine line that we are riding on, people are losing their ability to make decisions for themselves to the government and little freedoms of creativity are being lost everyday. Does this decision mean that if I write a fictional book or make a movie describing in detail how to murder or rape someone and a person takes this information I created, commits murder or rape I am guilty too? Yes, an extreme example but the same concept. Personal responsibility for ones-self is disappearing with court decisions such as this. Seems like just because something is made available by another if you a ignorant enough to use it to break the law only the law breaker should be guilty of the crime. Common sense to me but I guess lawyers and criminals need someone else to blame to in order to make money and stay out of jail.

"The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history.  At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home  and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." 

Potter Stewart  Source:Bartkus v. Illinois, 5 March 1961

Rule of law

Rule of law
The precedent that was set by the ruling is that it is illegal for copyrighted material to be downloaded over the internet in any way. If a user uses software designed by someone to “steal” such material both the user and the software that is the catalyst are guilty of copyright infringement. This decision took the case Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc, and turned it upside down. In the Betamax case the plaintiff, Sony, stated that the Betamax recorder allowed a user to copy programming off the T.V. and thus was stealing copyrighted material. The court ruled in favor of Betamax but it took years and by that time VCR's were in over fifty percent of american households. This case was the precedent for copyright stealing via recording or downloading until the ruling on MGM vs Groakster.

Interesting that the Betamax case was basically a delay tactic for Sony to introduce the VHS system and in the time that the case went through the entire legal process VHS had over a fifty percent market share in American households.

Now if a person decides to download copyrighted material they are guilty of copyright infringement.   Pamela Samuelson, has remarked, "The Sony decision is the most significant legacy of Justice Stevens in the field of intellectual property law and its significance is likely to continue in mediating disputes between copyright industries and creative information technology developers and users of information technology."

Sources: Harris, Paul. "Supreme Court O.K.'s Home Taping: Approve 'Time Shifting' for Personal Use." Variety (Los Angeles), 18 June 1984.

Reasoning of the Court

The court thought that the case was very similar to the Napster vs. A&M records and molded their business to capture users after Napster went to a pay site. As cited in the case documents this is a copy of an internal e-mail sent from a company executive: “We have put this network in place so that when Napster pulls the plug on their free service or if the Court orders them shut down prior to that we will be positioned to capture the flood of their 32 million users that will be actively looking for an alternative”

Grokster and Streamcast also developed promotional and advertising materials that stated they were 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?”

The opinion of the court was that Grokster even planned to flaunt that its software was illegal and launched what it called an OpenNap network. Even it name was close to Napster. In the end Grokster trying to piggyback on the successes and failure of Napster and encouraging Napster users to use their site while not filtering the transmitted information for copyrighted material was the downfall of Grokster.

Decision of the court –

On Monday June 26th 2005 a unanimous decision was issued by the Supreme court in the case of MGM vs Grokster. The notice on their website said, "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners."

The decision was a very strong victory for the companies with copyright issues and will mostlikley set the president for the sites that allow copyrighted material to be downloaded over their software. This ruling also gives the recording industry and Hollywood movie companies immediate rights to file lawsuits against companies that continue to allow users to trade copyrighted files. Companies that will benifiet are the ones that allow users and subscribers access to be able to download music and movies over paid sited, such as iTunes and Amazon.
"I think the Supreme Court did the right thing, in a lucid way," said Rob Glaser, CEO of RealNetworks. "I think it will make a difference in the long slog to convert the industry over to legitimacy, by not allowing businesses to do this kind of nudge-nudge wink-wink marketing."

*NOTE: In my opinion, I read this quote and think to myself, it has changed nothing. It is easier for me to download anything now than it was back in 2005. The bit-torrent sites are not even deeper underground, all you have to do is type "download music" into google and in about 5 minutes you can download just about anything you want.

As of November 07, 2005 Grokster has not offered or allowed users to download anything over their site. The notice on their website said, "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners."

What Do I Think of the Illicit Trade in Counterfeit Goods

I stand with 2 different opinions on this subject. First when it comes to counterfeit hard goods and the trade in people I think we need to control ourselves as people in the temptation to buy these fake products at a discounted price. The consumer is the driving force behind it. I myself have fallen for the temptation on more than one occasion while traveling the world. I have multiple pairs of designer jeans and a Versace wallet I carry with me every day. Strange is that the quality is usually better with the fake goods. The wallet I bought for less than a dollar in a Bangkok market has lasted almost 2 years and seems to be getting better with age. The real Versace wallet I have fell apart in a year which caused me to buy the fake. Yea, governments and police can try and stop this but the amount of money and yearning for a better life it will never stop. Someone needs to think outside the box on the impossibilities of completely stopping the sale and trade of goods and materials similar of what needs to be done on the war on drugs.
With music I believe that the artists need to adapt and accept that this is going to be around. Yes, I will work in the industry but if I don’t adapt and fight this unwinnable battle I will be left wondering why I can’t make any money. Technology is ever changing and it is speeding up at an exponential rate so the companies and artists that are as fast will be the ones that succeed. Plenty of money is there for the taking but now maybe it will be spread out a little more for the clever.
These problems will be around forever so maybe its time to look for different solutions.

Issue of the case

The case of MGM vs Grokster is a suit filed by 28 different entertainment companies against file sharing companies such as Kaka and Morpheus. The entertainment companies say that peer to peer file sharing is illegal copyright infringement and is basically allowing users to steal material.

The Supreme court decided to take on this case and had a landmark ruling declaring that users of this software to illegally obtain copyrighted material is in violation of the law. They did fall short of forcing technology companies to redesign software programs to limit the downloads of copyrighted material. Grokster claimed that using many different people to download a single file was not illegal because they are not getting all the information as a whole from a single source. The uplolders are not providing an entire piece of material to the downloader so there is no infringement. The person in violation is the downloader not the companies that provide the software to assemble the pieces together.

During oral argument, Justice Souter expressed skepticism about this legal strategy:
"I don’t understand how you can separate the past from the present in this fashion. One, I suppose, could say, ‘Well, I’m going to make inducing remarks Monday through Thursday, and I’m going to stop Thursday night.’ The sales of the product on Friday are still going to be the result of inducing remarks Monday through Wednesday. And you’re asking [us], in effect,…to ignore Monday through Thursday."

MGM argued that Musicians, studios, artists, and writers were affected and losing money due to the platform of these websites. The expenses for recording and producing music, movies, and software are high and if people are allowed to simply download them the business will become bankrupt and no longer to be able to afford the costs to create.

In a rare unanimous (9-0) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a District Court and ruled in favor of MGM, sending MGM's case against the file-sharing service, Grokster, back to the lower court for trial.

In order to download the free client, users must now first agree to the statement "I will not use LimeWire for copyright infringement."

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?"

Sources http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html

Update: (MGM) v. Grokster, Ltd

I have done a little reading on court cases involving file sharing and the punishments handed down by lower courts. I have noticed that every case that hits the mainstream media the judge wants to make an example out of the guilty offender. Many over-the-top rulings have destroyed some unlucky teenagers’ life because he decided to download a few songs. I know this really doesn’t have much to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling but I have found the background information interesting.
There is so much information on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM) v. Grokster, Ltd that just organizing and reading is going to be my focus for the upcoming week. I plan on reading some facts, opinions, and legal mumbo jumbo to gather a broad view of the case. Yea, the Legal MJ will be the final ruling. Maybe try and tackle this when I’m having trouble sleeping because it will for sure knock me right out. Though, I do look forward to the opinions and facts part.

Facts of the case

On March 29, the Supreme Court listened to arguments in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The Supreme Court ruled that peer-to-peer file sharing companies could be liable for copyright piracy used over their networks. This was a huge win for record, software and movie companies. It was a unanimous decision and the 9 justices wanted to be clear that companies building their business on file sharing and swapping would be liable for any copyrighted material being transmitted over their system.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling gives movie and music companies’ immediate immunity on existing lawsuits being held by file sharing companies. It will also increase revenues for legal downloading sites such as iTunes and Yahoo.

'We are confident that it will be proven that Morpheus does not promote or encourage copyright infringement," said StreamCast Chief Executive Officer Michael Weiss. "We're staying in this for the fight. We're going to continue to innovate and come out with new products."

To this day some other file sharing websites still continue to offer peer-to-peer software despite the fact that their primary use is to pirate copyrighted music, software, and movies.

My Thoughts on My Rights as a Property Owner

Well since I use to be a landlord I have gone through a few issues with renters. I rented two bedrooms to two girls in my house in Florida. Needed to do this because my adjustable rate mortgage was about to come to fruition and the extra income was needed to sustain my lifestyle. Anyway, I allowed both of them to move in without a lease and a small down payment because I knew them and thought they were trustworthy but after a few months I found out that was not the case.
I collected rent for the first 3 months but on the forth I started getting excuses from one and to make matters worse she decided to quit her job. 2 months passed and no money and no job. Three months passed and not even effort to pay.
At this point I tried to kick her out but she had no place to go and refused. I talked to my friend and he basically told me that since I allowed her to move her stuff into my house and had no written contract or lease agreement, I was screwed.
A few months passed and this girl was always at the house, took about 3 showers a day, stole my food, and was a drain on any positive energy I had when I was at home. I dreaded being at home…
Finally, out of the blue I came home from work and all her stuff was moved out, no explanation. Still to this day I have no idea where she went or what has happened to her. Don’t really care.
Morel to the story is get everything in writing and a hefty deposit. The laws to evict someone are loose and take forever if not in a contract. As a landlord read the laws in your state that apply to rentals and be careful who you let rent because if you let someone live in your property the owner seems to lose many rights.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called: Bear, Blade, Asshole
Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): photographer, valet, sales rep
Three Places I Have Lived: california, arizona, missouri
Three TV Shows that I watch: seinfield, breaking bad, no reservations
Three places I have been: cambodia, thailand, egypt
People that e-mail me regularly mam, dad, sister
Three of my favorite foods sushi, soup, pizza
Three cars I have driven: bmw, saab, audi
Three things I am looking forward to: travel, sleep, graduation

Greed Is Good

Greed is good
In the article published by the Wall Street Journal the writer explains where bonuses were paid and why. I believe that some bonuses were paid justly and some were not. If the contract with the employee has a bonus structure outlined and the person makes the stated goals the bonus should be paid. There is a reason some of these high priced executives make huge sums of money and that is they are worth it. Their knowledge and expertise is supposed to make the company money and therefore justify the large salaries. If they don’t they should be terminated and the company has to deal with the loses on its own. Capitalism, right?
The problem the public has with the large bonuses is they see only that the company is failing and they are receiving taxpayer bailout money. I argue, the government should have given no “bailout” money in the first place and let the free market take over. Where one giant corporation fails another will step in and take its place. Greed is good if you are making the money. If you’re not, you’re bitching and complaining. We as taxpaying citizens elected the government “experts” that decided to offer all the “bailout” funds with no regulations so in many ways we are responsible for the decisions made by the companies and government officials.
I compare this whole situation the 9/11 Patriot Act. In haste and fear we allowed many of rights to be restricted by government because we were scared of future attacks. Our elected politicians voted to pass such legislation without reading the majority of it. I’m sure they were briefed on it… In the future we should pay more attention to who we elect then what company is about to fail and have some faith in capitalism and free market. Just be prepared for the worst or you will be the one bitching and complaining.

"Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

I disagree with the ruling because the student was off the school property. If they had been on school grounds while holding the sign they would be in violation of school policies. I believe if someone has something to say and they follow the legal outlines they should be allowed to say it. The student was not disrupting any event, only stating a phrase. This phrase could be taken many different ways depending on the reader. In no way was it promoting illegal drug use. There was no profanity in this sign only touchy subjects like religion mixed with drug lingo. Bong hits don’t exactly mean marijuana smoking. The bong is a water pipe sold for smoking tobacco. For all I know this guy wanted Jesus to smoke some tobacco. Also Jesus can be a very common name in Mexico so maybe he wanted Jesus to smoke tobacco.

The common sense reaction of the student should to have been to take down the sign once the administrator asked. They had their fun and got whatever point across they were trying too.

Personally this whole thing was a waste of tax-payer money and time for such a minor issue. Just goes to show what happens when strong egos get in the middle of a dispute. Next time hopefully someone will use good judgment and come to a mutual agreement so all the time and money is not used in waste.

Crimes and Torts

1 T-Film tampering2 C-Reefer3 T-False advertising4 T-ILLEGAL Gambling5 C-Threats6 C-Destruction of property7 C-Assault8 C-Drinking on the job9 C-Lying under oath10 C-Payoff witnesses11 C-Bribery12 C-Driving without a license13 C-Sexual harassment14 C-Jaywalking15 C-Speeding16 C-Reckless driving17 C-No seatbelts18 C-Assault with a deadly weapon19 C-Hit and run20 T-Not smogged21 C-Sold a non working car22 C-Off roading23 C-Concealed weapon24 C-Car surfing25 C-Illegal passing26 C-Tailgating27 C-Underage driving28 C-No insurance29 T-Looking at private documents30 C-Attempted murder

My Comments for Jade Interiors and Strawberry Studios

Jade Interiors
http://jadeinteriors702.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-i-feel-about-lawyers.html?showComment=1240529580000#c3467906208127541071
I agree with your opinion “I believe it may be true that lawyers are faulted for the flaws in the law itself, and some lawyers perform a beneficial role by holding citizens accountable to the law. It is the decline in this field’s professionalism that has urged me to consider the fact that they exert a lot of effort into changing public perception and not their practices." because you can't lump all lawyers into one statement. Some have a Nobel cause and they try their best to uphold the laws. But others prey on misfortune of others and capitalize with taking large percentages of their compensation. Hard to debate when there are so many individual circumstances.

Starberry Studios
http://starberrystudios.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-views-of-todays-justice-system.html
I agree with your comments "America’s justice system also does a great job protecting businesses. It helps protect them from white-collar crimes such as: bribery, extortion, perjury, embezzlement, and other crimes like credit card fraud and identity theft. Many of the laws set forth are protect businesses from collapsing. It also gives small companies a chance to rise in today’s economy by setting the grounds so that everyone can play fair." but I also think it can be taken too far and the use of common sense is lost. To many cases want to make an example out of a high profile defendant and a lawyer coming up in the world wants to get his fame at someone else’s expense.
Nice use of information from the book.

What do I think of the law?

Hmmm? Laws?
The law is that line of morality or rules that someone or many have said we must follow or we will be punished. I question the laws we have all the time. Do I follow the law? Yes, most of the time but I disagree with a few and I agree with many but I think we need to be more current with all our laws.

We can look at laws in two ways; first, they are set to keep the general population from a state of anarchy. Second, they are set to control the population by a higher institution such as a government or religion. Laws keeping the public safe are a necessity but sometimes laws fringe on breaking our basic rights. For us as citizens of the United States we are taught to believe that we are free. I sometimes wonder how free we really are. An easy example is at age eighteen I can’t drink a beer without breaking the law but at the same age my government can draft me against my will to fight in a war. This makes no sense to me. Is this freedom? I’m not sure but I question it.

I believe a solution for many outdated laws is after a specific amount of time each and every law on the books needs to be reviewed and voted on at both a state and federal level. This process may take many years and an entirely new branch of government may need to be created but at least we are up to date with changing times. If the IRS can keep track of every citizen’s taxes then we should be able to keep track of all the laws on the books. Which is more important?

So, yes I believe that law is a good thing or even a necessity to society and without them humanity would not be able to function but we need some checks and balances to keep the system current.

What I think of lawyers

So lawyers? My thoughts? Lawyers serve many proposes, they help convict the guilty, free the innocent, uphold our laws under the United States constitution, obtain compensation from the wronged, and so on. A lawyer can be your best friend in a time of need and your worst enemy if you have committed a crime.

What I think of them depends on why I need one. I will place myself in a situation where I have been wrongly accused of stealing something of great value and all the evidence points right back in my direction. Without a competent lawyer I’m basically screwed for lack of a better term. I will have to put all my faith, trust, and hope in this person knowing that if they F-up I will be getting to know what it feels like to spend many long years in a state prison to ponder my despise of incompetent lawyer scum. If my lawyer gets me acquitted, I love lawyers.

Lawyers that we call “ambulance chasers” annoy me and I believe that they push prices of insurance through the roof but they spent a lot of time reading very boring books in order to pass that bar test so I give them some credit. Someone always finishes at the bottom of the class just scraping by with slightly passing average and they need to eat too. They also have to have a client that hires them to prosecute for trivial reasons. I believe the greed of the client fuels the greed of the lawyer. This statement also stays true with divorce lawyers.

So really in the Cliff Notes version of my thoughts on lawyers is they serve a need for what the situation is and if I need one I must have respect and faith that the justice system will prevail (at least in my favor).