File Sharing Case Before Supreme Court - GoFuckYourself.com

Greg B · 01-26-2005, 10:22 AM

Briefs filed at Supreme Court in file-sharing case
Internet case pits artists against civil libertarians
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 Posted: 4:39 PM EST (2139 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Bush administration Supreme Court lawyer Theodore Olson has lined up with Hollywood in a big stakes fight over Internet file sharing.

Olson represented President Bush in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case at the high court and was solicitor general until last summer when he returned to private practice in Washington.

Now he's at the Supreme Court again, this time on the side of artists including Jimmy Buffett, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, the Eagles, Reba McEntire, Avril Lavigne and Kenny Rogers.

About 20 briefs were filed this week at the court supporting recording companies and movie studios that are trying to stop online distribution of copyrighted works. Justices hear arguments March 29 in the case that will decide if file-sharing services are responsible when their customers illegally swap songs and movies.

"The world is watching to see whether we really mean what we say when we promise protection to innovation and the creative process," Olson, who filed arguments on behalf of the Defenders of Property Rights, said Tuesday at a news conference.

On the other side are civil libertarians and consumer groups who contend that a defeat for Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. could force technology companies to delay or block innovative products that give consumers more control.

The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.

Manowar · 01-26-2005, 10:29 AM

This will be a very interesting case

Greg B · 01-26-2005, 10:55 AM

Manowar, I agree.

Yet I can see the forest for the trees in that the file sharing service can't be held responsible fully for what people share. It's like trying to blame the phone company because some asschew decided to use a phone to threaten somebody. All they're doing is providing a service/procedure. What the user does with it is his or her own responsibility. The service can put in a warning in their TOS not to share certain files and perhaps even put in some form of filter. Yet in the long run a service is a service.

I'm quite sure the Supreme Court will see this and rule quickly.

Manowar · 01-26-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg B

Manowar, I agree.

Yet I can see the forest for the trees in that the file sharing service can't be held responsible fully for what people share. It's like trying to blame the phone company because some asschew decided to use a phone to threaten somebody. All they're doing is providing a service/procedure. What the user does with it is his or her own responsibility. The service can put in a warning in their TOS not to share certain files and perhaps even put in some form of filter. Yet in the long run a service is a service.

I'm quite sure the Supreme Court will see this and rule quickly.

Hopefully, but I can see the broadcast company reps pushing the whole "you dont try and stop users sharing illegal files", "you need to implement methods to stop" argument.

Hopefully the court will see sense

Veterans Day · 01-26-2005, 11:17 AM

your example of the phone is not credible whatsoever, the phone provides many legit legal purposes, name 1 legal purpose a file sharing service provides.

TheJimmy · 01-26-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veterans Day

your example of the phone is not credible whatsoever, the phone provides many legit legal purposes, name 1 legal purpose a file sharing service provides.

1) if I were a musician maybe I'd like to share my mp3s to get some fan base and distribute over a number of p2p networks

2) if I had written a lot of useful ebooks and wanted to get them out cheaply

3) if I were a programmer and had written a very useful tool and wanted to give it away, but didn't feel like hosting the file for download on my server

there's 3...enjoy

Der Schleicher · 01-26-2005, 11:36 AM

Justice delyed is justice denied. who justice it is anyway?

cherrylula · 01-26-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veterans Day

your example of the phone is not credible whatsoever, the phone provides many legit legal purposes, name 1 legal purpose a file sharing service provides.

i know hundreds of bands that use file sharing programs to get their name out and it works very effectively.

beemk · 01-26-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

i know hundreds of bands that use file sharing programs to get their name out and it works very effectively.

what she said

brand0n · 01-26-2005, 11:46 AM

should be good. was a matter of time before another one hit the high courts

ztik · 01-26-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

i know hundreds of bands that use file sharing programs to get their name out and it works very effectively.

There is hundreds and even thousands of amatuer techno dj's who put their music out on them

01-26-2005, 10:22 AM	#1
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	File Sharing Case Before Supreme Court Briefs filed at Supreme Court in file-sharing case Internet case pits artists against civil libertarians Tuesday, January 25, 2005 Posted: 4:39 PM EST (2139 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Bush administration Supreme Court lawyer Theodore Olson has lined up with Hollywood in a big stakes fight over Internet file sharing. Olson represented President Bush in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case at the high court and was solicitor general until last summer when he returned to private practice in Washington. Now he's at the Supreme Court again, this time on the side of artists including Jimmy Buffett, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, the Eagles, Reba McEntire, Avril Lavigne and Kenny Rogers. About 20 briefs were filed this week at the court supporting recording companies and movie studios that are trying to stop online distribution of copyrighted works. Justices hear arguments March 29 in the case that will decide if file-sharing services are responsible when their customers illegally swap songs and movies. "The world is watching to see whether we really mean what we say when we promise protection to innovation and the creative process," Olson, who filed arguments on behalf of the Defenders of Property Rights, said Tuesday at a news conference. On the other side are civil libertarians and consumer groups who contend that a defeat for Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. could force technology companies to delay or block innovative products that give consumers more control. The case is Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.

01-26-2005, 11:17 AM	#5
Veterans Day Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Windy City Posts: 8,403	your example of the phone is not credible whatsoever, the phone provides many legit legal purposes, name 1 legal purpose a file sharing service provides. __________________ Build a Massive Traffic Network, Hands FREE, Totally Automated

01-26-2005, 11:36 AM	#7
Der Schleicher Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,189	Justice delyed is justice denied. who justice it is anyway? __________________ Teeny Teen Girls - One of the best free pictures and videos online. WEBMASTER - We offer free hosting and dream submitter sign up now!

01-26-2005, 11:46 AM	#10
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	should be good. was a matter of time before another one hit the high courts __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

01-26-2005, 10:29 AM	#2
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	This will be a very interesting case

01-26-2005, 10:55 AM	#3
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	Manowar, I agree. Yet I can see the forest for the trees in that the file sharing service can't be held responsible fully for what people share. It's like trying to blame the phone company because some asschew decided to use a phone to threaten somebody. All they're doing is providing a service/procedure. What the user does with it is his or her own responsibility. The service can put in a warning in their TOS not to share certain files and perhaps even put in some form of filter. Yet in the long run a service is a service. I'm quite sure the Supreme Court will see this and rule quickly.