[Yak]

This is now officially the Anti-Liberty Court.

Oh, please.

The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal. Theft of intellectual property is as real as theft of property, even though many FEEL they have the right to intellectual theft.

Those who INTENTIONALLY aid and abet this theft are themselves liable, that the way I interpret this verdict.

And by the way, I agree with it.

[thoughtomator]

Well I hope you're happy now that an auto manufacturer can be sued because they made the car used as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery.

[rwfromkansas]

You are wrong.

They are completley overturning Betamax, which said TECHNOLOGY is not at fault. People are.

With file-sharing, they are ruling that people are not responsible, but that technology that can be used for legal purposes IS THE PROBLEM.

[rwfromkansas]

Your Internet Explorer could be used to share files and break the law.

Will it be taken down?

What about your DVD player?

[ByDesign]

This is NOT about theft, so you can get off yer high horse.

This is about LEGITIMATE networking protocols, the same as the ones that are shipped in the OS you are using RIGHT NOW. Under this ruling Microsoft can be held liable, because they "aided and abetted" the theft of copyrighted music.

The P2P nets are used for a LOT more than just downloading music and movies illegally, they are used by corporations for file sharing, I know of several online games that use it to process patches to the games, and the weath of knowledge as P2P networks move forward enriches us ALL, as the technology grows. Yes, people are abusing it - but now we'll get *zero* growth, because who in their right mind would invest in ANY new file sharing technologies, when this ruling give Hollywood and the music industry carte blanche to shut you down in a microsecond? Have you no idea how this ruling is going to be applied across other technologies as well? A user rips off a movie with his Tivo unit - Tivo gets sued out of existence.

This is BAD. Very, very, very bad.

[dirtboy]

The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal

And this ruling is like saying that, if I were to use the Pennsylvania Turnpike to get away from a bank robbery, that the Turnpike Authority can be sued for it.

[KevinDavis]

I use to download music without paying.. I no longer do it..

[Itzlzha]

This is now officially the Anti-Liberty Court.

Oh, please.
The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal. Theft of intellectual property is as real as theft of property, even though many FEEL they have the right to intellectual theft.
Those who INTENTIONALLY aid and abet this theft are themselves liable, that the way I interpret this verdict.
And by the way, I agree with it.

Well, since the Kelo decision says that the State can confiscate property for the betterment of the State because someone ELSE could better utilize said property, what makes you think "Intellectual Property" is secure from said confiscation?

Perhaps someone ELSE could better utilize an artists catalog...make more $$$ and increase tax revenues by better promoting/performing/marketing them?

I am a professional musician, and this is crap!

All this does is keep those DINOSAURS RIAA and BIG Music companies in power for a little longer.

The Internet and File-Sharing will allow musicians to promote self-recorded music WITHOUT the rediculously stilted contracts and exorbinant fees that these corrupt groups force the artists to pay.

THAT is what they fear most...that they will eventully be cut out of the loop!

As to your argument...it has been COMMON practice for YEARS for one to loan a friend an album/tape for them to make a copy of...hell Alcoholica (AKA Metallica) got it's START by fans trading bootlegs and causing a buzz!

The only REAL complaint is that due to computers and new technology, the QUALITY of the copies is equal to the original....THAT it what bugs them. The fact that your record/tape will wear out and you need to BUY another copy, versus a perfect replica that you can have at home, in a portable MP3, and in your car!

Tell me WHY a CD should cost so much, when CD-R's by the bundle are DIRT CHEAP? The ORIGINAL reason was that it was "new" technology...well, it's been 15 YEARS...the technology has PAID for itself, and has ADVANCED, yet they STILL demand an EXORBINANT price for the product!

It's because you can NOW rip a copy for yourself, and friends! It's ALL about the $$$ in the RECORD companies pocket...an artist RARELY gets more that 15 CENTS per copy sold! The REST goes to the CONTRACT holders! Artists RARELY get rich on record sales...the REAL money is in the Tours, Merchandise, and the band-owned copies of the records they sell at their shows WITHOUT the record company getting a piece of the action...if you see a band you like and want to help them make some REAL $$$, buy their vendor's t-shirts, and CD's!

Your arguments are for a Mastodon, stuck in a tar-pit and sinking, marveling at the warmth of the tar!

[N3WBI3]

The court was essentially reaffirming that theft is illegal. Theft of intellectual property is as real as theft of property, even though many FEEL they have the right to intellectual theft.

and a law punishing gun makers because people shoot eachother would be an act against murder?

[pyx]

And by the way, I agree with it.

Then I suspect you don't completely understand the ramifications of the decision.

The USSC has just decried that developers and users of inanimate objects AKA TECHNOLOGY can be sued. Maybe you can understand a simpler example, SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS when a brand of gun is used to break the law or SUING CAR MAKERS when a brand of car used illegally.

Still cheerleading now ?