Comments on: The Grokster Decision Explained: P2P File Sharing is Not Illegal! http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/ Internet Safety, Windows Updates, Internet News, and More Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:05:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: JSF http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-3068 JSF Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:21:25 +0000 /?p=772#comment-3068 I agree wholeheartedly with Lee. The music industry changed formats three times in my lifetime. I have U2's 'Under a Blood Red Sky' album in three different formats. Now, I could burn my own copy of the CD to MP3 or I could download it from a file-sharing network. Who cares which I do? I bought the music. It's mine. I don't own the copyright to perform it, but I do own the music to listen to. If anyone buys the music to listen to, they aren't prohibited from letting someone else listen to it in a private setting. That's all file-sharing is. I could also let someone borrow an album and they could tape it on a cassette tape. That's been going on for years. I don't hear the RIAA complaining about that. I agree wholeheartedly with Lee. The music industry changed formats three times in my lifetime. I have U2’s ‘Under a Blood Red Sky’ album in three different formats. Now, I could burn my own copy of the CD to MP3 or I could download it from a file-sharing network. Who cares which I do? I bought the music. It’s mine. I don’t own the copyright to perform it, but I do own the music to listen to. If anyone buys the music to listen to, they aren’t prohibited from letting someone else listen to it in a private setting. That’s all file-sharing is. I could also let someone borrow an album and they could tape it on a cassette tape. That’s been going on for years. I don’t hear the RIAA complaining about that.

]]> By: LEE http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2182 LEE Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:25:32 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2182 In my time, I've bought roughly 1000 albums,which have all fallen by the wayside due to warping and wearing out. For example, i have PAID for 3 copies of Meatloafs Bat out of Hell album,plus 1 tape of same. Somehow, I just dont feel bad about downloading mp3s of songs from that album,or any of the other albums I used to have, because THEY MADE THEIR MONEY OFF OF ME ALREADY, 4 times over! Having been a hardcore audiophile,the industry has already made alot off of me, and I realy don't feel I'm stealing anything when I'm attempting to recover copies of the music that I have already paid for. In my time, I’ve bought roughly 1000 albums,which have all fallen by the wayside due to warping and wearing out. For example, i have PAID for 3 copies of Meatloafs Bat out of Hell album,plus 1 tape of same. Somehow, I just dont feel bad about downloading mp3s of songs from that album,or any of the other albums I used to have, because THEY MADE THEIR MONEY OFF OF ME ALREADY, 4 times over! Having been a hardcore audiophile,the industry has already made alot off of me, and I realy don’t feel I’m stealing anything when I’m attempting to recover copies of the music that I have already paid for.

]]> By: Liam http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2149 Liam Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:53:03 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2149 There are tons of music stores why can't you buy music there than than risking a fine and/or a jail sentence. Eveyone is able to afford to buy music! If you don't like the DRM restrictons from the music store you can buy a CD for crying out loud! The moral of this entire story is: DONT STEAL MUSIC!!!!!!! There are tons of music stores why can’t you buy music there than than risking a fine and/or a jail sentence. Eveyone is able to afford to buy music! If you don’t like the DRM restrictons from the music store you can buy a CD for crying out loud! The moral of this entire story is: DONT STEAL MUSIC!!!!!!!

]]> By: Tinman http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2095 Tinman Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:21:18 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2095 That still won't stop Hollywood from suing the pants off of them, because the court ruled that they could be sued for allowing the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. That still won’t stop Hollywood from suing the pants off of them, because the court ruled that they could be sued for allowing the illegal downloading of copyrighted material.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2093 Jeff Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:50:58 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2093 If you think that the Supreme Court's decision didn't declare open season on open file-sharing networks, it somply proves that you're not a lawyer. "It’s not good enough for your peer-to-peer or other filesharing network to have some other legal, legitimate use." You see? A file-sharing network doesn't even get to hide behind 'other legitimate usage' in order to avoid being sued. It's mearly necessary for the network to be proved to be ABLE to be used by an infringing source and customer. But this doesn't mean that file-sharing networks will face the fire? If you think that the Supreme Court’s decision didn’t declare open season on open file-sharing networks, it somply proves that you’re not a lawyer.
“It’s not good enough for your peer-to-peer or other filesharing network to have some other legal, legitimate use.”

You see? A file-sharing network doesn’t even get to hide behind ‘other legitimate usage’ in order to avoid being sued. It’s mearly necessary for the network to be proved to be ABLE to be used by an infringing source and customer.

But this doesn’t mean that file-sharing networks will face the fire?

]]> By: m. freeman http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2092 m. freeman Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:05:22 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2092 Let's keep this as simple as possible. If you sell or otherwise provide something that you do not own, have title to, or otherwise is not YOURS to provide, by any other name it's illegal. Thus, to provide a copy of copyrighted material of ANY kind that you do not own or have express written permission to distribute is illegal. Now, Aunty will state that that's not what Grokster is doing. They are providing a method of people sharing their "possessions". Well, have you ever heard of aiding or abetting a crime? So, Grokster isn't doing anything wrong here. WRONG Grokster is aiding and abetting a crime, and knows damn well that a crime is being committed, and should be preventing it instead of aiding in the commission of the crime! Let’s keep this as simple as possible. If you sell or otherwise provide something that you do not own, have title to, or otherwise is not YOURS to provide, by any other name it’s illegal. Thus, to provide a copy of copyrighted material of ANY kind that you do not own or have express written permission to distribute is illegal. Now, Aunty will state that that’s not what Grokster is doing. They are providing a method of people sharing their “possessions”. Well, have you ever heard of aiding or abetting a crime? So, Grokster isn’t doing anything wrong here. WRONG Grokster is aiding and abetting a crime, and knows damn well that a crime is being committed, and should be preventing it instead of aiding in the commission of the crime!

]]> By: irene http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2091 irene Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:37:41 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2091 straight face? How can one keep a straight face when they deal with the goblygook lawyers use to confuse us. One day someone will say what they mean and give consumers what they want at an affordable price. Dove product ads are a good representation of this. Entertainment industry might take a lesson from them and get real. straight face? How can one keep a straight face when they deal with the goblygook lawyers use to confuse us. One day someone will say what they mean and give consumers what they want at an affordable price. Dove product ads are a good representation of this. Entertainment industry might take a lesson from them and get real.

]]> By: "gunner" http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2088 "gunner" Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:15:40 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2088 you might want to read janice ian's comments on this issue, "the internet debacle" and "fallout" at her website. particularly where she says she has never made a nickel in raii "royalties", but makes her money from tours and concerts. here's the url. http://www.janisian.com/articles.html you might want to read janice ian’s comments on this issue, “the internet debacle” and “fallout” at her website. particularly where she says she has never made a nickel in raii “royalties”, but makes her money from tours and concerts. here’s the url.

http://www.janisian.com/articles.html

]]> By: CHS http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2085 CHS Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:11:32 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2085 So what's your point? Are you bugged that you must pay for the fruits of other peoples labor or are you reassured that non-copywrited files can be shared by everyone? Duh, the fact that this case went to the Supreme Court only proves that there are too many shysters around with nothing better to do. So what’s your point? Are you bugged that you must pay for the fruits of other peoples labor or are you reassured that non-copywrited files can be shared by everyone? Duh, the fact that this case went to the Supreme Court only proves that there are too many shysters around with nothing better to do.

]]> By: Sheenada http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-grokster-decision-explained-p2p-file-sharing-is-not-illegal/#comment-2084 Sheenada Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:46:15 +0000 /?p=772#comment-2084 Who cares? Just how many of you people are allowed to present your side of this issue to the Supreme Court? I for one am not and therefore am not obliged to obey any decisions made there. Who cares? Just how many of you people are allowed to present your side of this issue to the Supreme Court? I for one am not and therefore am not obliged to obey any decisions made there.

]]>