crazylegs
Member Extraordinaire
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 5,743
- Reaction score
- 64
Just thought all you dudes out there might want to read this article and keep abreast of the situation as it unfolds, it involves every one of us or will do in some way in the future.
We need to keep an eye on this one folks. Tuesday we will begin the debate between innovation and Hollywood's rights. This is without a doubt a most important case that will set the tone for the future for us. If you think products like TiVo or the iPod are important to you, then this battle is too.
At issue in MGM vs. Grokster is whether the makers of file-sharing software should be held liable when people use their products to illegally download copyrighted music and movies.
The court ruled in a 1984 case involving the Sony Betamax videocassette recorder that as long as a technology has a substantial legitimate use, manufacturers cannot be found liable for copyright violations committed by people who use their products. As music, movies and other entertainment became so many 1s and 0s easily reproduced at the touch of a button, the Betamax standard allowed companies to develop CD burners, DVD players and other technologies without fear of being sued every time a customer makes copies of a song or TV show.
Now the entertainment industry wants to change the rules of the game. It has asked the Supreme Court to revise the Betamax standard so that only companies whose technologies' ``primary use'' is legitimate can be shielded from being hauled into court.
The distinction may sound trivial, but Silicon Valley companies say it could jeopardize their ability to create the next big thing.
That's because no one knows exactly what consumers will do with any new technology. If companies risk being sued for developing, say, the next iPod, they might choose to play it safe, according to Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford University law professor who has written extensively about copyright in the digital age.
``The practical effect of the rule that they're trying to get the court to adopt would be to impose extremely high costs on innovation,'' said Lessig.
Jason Krikorian, co-founder of San Mateo's Sling Media, agreed.
I think we can all agree that this is a ruling that can have a tremendous impact on our world. If investors are afraid to put money into a project, or if companies can't be sure that their product is completely controllable- the ideas will die on the design table. Because they will be liable for any illegal actions of the users.
The situation is so bad if the case is lost (in our eyes) that not only would programmers that write File-sharing applications be sued, for writing a software that empowered users to violate copyright, but feasably, Intel could be sued for providing the chip, that powers the PC, that the app runs on! Ka-ching! and the money goes right to those copyright holders. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
Make sure to read this article in it's entirety and rest assured that everybody will be watching as this situation unfolds. It is really a historical moment.
We need to keep an eye on this one folks. Tuesday we will begin the debate between innovation and Hollywood's rights. This is without a doubt a most important case that will set the tone for the future for us. If you think products like TiVo or the iPod are important to you, then this battle is too.
The court ruled in a 1984 case involving the Sony Betamax videocassette recorder that as long as a technology has a substantial legitimate use, manufacturers cannot be found liable for copyright violations committed by people who use their products. As music, movies and other entertainment became so many 1s and 0s easily reproduced at the touch of a button, the Betamax standard allowed companies to develop CD burners, DVD players and other technologies without fear of being sued every time a customer makes copies of a song or TV show.
Now the entertainment industry wants to change the rules of the game. It has asked the Supreme Court to revise the Betamax standard so that only companies whose technologies' ``primary use'' is legitimate can be shielded from being hauled into court.
The distinction may sound trivial, but Silicon Valley companies say it could jeopardize their ability to create the next big thing.
That's because no one knows exactly what consumers will do with any new technology. If companies risk being sued for developing, say, the next iPod, they might choose to play it safe, according to Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford University law professor who has written extensively about copyright in the digital age.
``The practical effect of the rule that they're trying to get the court to adopt would be to impose extremely high costs on innovation,'' said Lessig.
Jason Krikorian, co-founder of San Mateo's Sling Media, agreed.
I think we can all agree that this is a ruling that can have a tremendous impact on our world. If investors are afraid to put money into a project, or if companies can't be sure that their product is completely controllable- the ideas will die on the design table. Because they will be liable for any illegal actions of the users.
The situation is so bad if the case is lost (in our eyes) that not only would programmers that write File-sharing applications be sued, for writing a software that empowered users to violate copyright, but feasably, Intel could be sued for providing the chip, that powers the PC, that the app runs on! Ka-ching! and the money goes right to those copyright holders. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
Make sure to read this article in it's entirety and rest assured that everybody will be watching as this situation unfolds. It is really a historical moment.
.
