PDA

View Full Version : US Supreme Court



Michael Haan
2005-03-03, 15:36
Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material.









>From: "Aaron Zinck" <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>



>Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>



>To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com



>Subject: [slim] US Supreme Court



>Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500



>



>"Patrick Cosson" wrote



> > FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies,



> > submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court in



> > defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling.



> >



> > Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the



> > case before the court.



> >



> > The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site:



> > * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/20050301_emerging_tech.pdf



> >



> > For more information about the case, visit:



> > * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/



> >



> >



> > Patrick



> >



>



>



>I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect



>to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what



>financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case.  I'm no lawyer



>and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though



>the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could



>understand having a direct impact on Slim's business).  Could someone



>enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this?  What's the big



>picture here that I'm missing?



>



>-Aaron



>



>



>



>_______________________________________________



>Discuss mailing list



>Discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com



>http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss

kdf
2005-03-03, 15:57
Quoting Michael Haan <michael_haan (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>:

>
> Because it gets right to the question of whether or not technology can
> legally exist for making copies of copyrighted material.

it is also because they happen to care about fair use rights, beyond simple
selfish reasons. Just think about it. If the kinds of restrictions desires by
the record companies come into play, it will be illegal to copy CD's to your
hard drive even for personal use. It will be illegal to resell your used CD's,
possibly even to copy to your mp3 player for jogging.

There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was
just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a
thing is just vile.

-kdf

> >From: "Aaron Zinck" <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu>
> >Reply-To: Slim Devices Discussion <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
> >To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> >Subject: [slim] US Supreme Court
> >Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:28:19 -0500
> >
> >"Patrick Cosson" wrote
> > > FYI...Slim Devices, along with other emerging technology companies,
> > > submitted an Amicus (friend of the court) Brief to the US Supreme Court
> in
> > > defense of the landmark 1984 Betamax ruling.
> > >
> > > Below you can find an articled from the Associated Press summarizing the
> > > case before the court.
> > >
> > > The brief can be downloaded from EFF's web site:
> > > * http://www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/20050301_emerging_tech.pdf
> > >
> > > For more information about the case, visit:
> > > * http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
> > >
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> >
> >
> >I find this interesting, and while I'm not sure where I stand with respect
> >to this case (I don't know enough about it) I don't understand what
> >financial/business interest Slim Devices has in this case. I'm no lawyer
> >and may be a bit dense about these types of things, but it seems as though
> >the case is about peer-to-peer file sharing--not DRM (which I could
> >understand having a direct impact on Slim's business). Could someone
> >enlighten me as to why Slim has such an interest in this? What's the big
> >picture here that I'm missing?
> >
> >-Aaron
> >
> >
> >
> >

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_H=FCbner?=
2005-03-04, 01:30
kdf wrote:
>
> There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
> decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
> you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.

being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
referred to the European Cour of Justice. '

There has, however, been talks in Europe regarding copying of material
from one format to another. The strange effect of the judgement referred
by you (that I have not read) is that it would also be unlawful to copy
to a cassette.

But - on topic - Way to go Slim Devices...

/Johan


--
Johan Hbner --!!johan at hubner.se!!--

kdf
2005-03-04, 01:47
Quoting Johan Hbner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:

> kdf wrote:
> >
> > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
> > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,
> if
> > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.
>
> being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
> assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
> delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
> referred to the European Cour of Justice. '

thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over
mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually
consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all
the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class action
if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.

sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously
feel some lack of value in their lives.

canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break

=kdf

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_H=FCbner?=
2005-03-04, 01:56
kdf wrote:
> Quoting Johan Hbner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:
>
>
>>kdf wrote:
>>
>>>There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
>>>decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,
>>
>>if
>>
>>>you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.
>>
>>being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
>>assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
>>delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
>>referred to the European Cour of Justice. '
>
>
> thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information over
> mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
> socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can actually
> consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that all
> the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class action
> if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.
>
> sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who obviously
> feel some lack of value in their lives.
>
> canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break
>

Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our
swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank
media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the
price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase
which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for
legal copying, ie fair use (US & Ca) and statutory private copying (EU).
It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to
compensate for illegal copying.

But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal
society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court
proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of
copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a
fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give
them a economic incentive to continue creating.

Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce
in the US and in EU.

/Johan

--
Johan Hbner --!!johan at hubner.se!!--

kdf
2005-03-04, 02:14
Quoting Johan Hbner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:

> kdf wrote:
> > Quoting Johan Hbner <johan (AT) hubner (DOT) se>:
> >
> >
> >>kdf wrote:
> >>
> >>>There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
> >>>decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,
> >>
> >>if
> >>
> >>>you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD.
> >>
> >>being a european lawyer I have not heard of that ruling, but I can
> >>assure you that it is not EU-wide. If you have a URL I would be
> >>delighted. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to be overturned if it was
> >>referred to the European Cour of Justice. '
> >
> >
> > thanks johan. I really was going on memory, so I'll trust your information
> over
> > mine. All I can really go on at this point in thank goodness for canadian
> > socialism. We get raped with blank media fees, but at least we can
> actually
> > consider media that we purchase as 'owned', which is good considering that
> all
> > the advertising says "own it today". I think this could be a big class
> action
> > if we took this and interpreted it based on US laws.
> >
> > sad thing is, this is only the beginning for a group of people who
> obviously
> > feel some lack of value in their lives.
> >
> > canadian beef unsafe???? give me a freaking break
> >
>
> Well - your canadian socialism is probably rather slack compared to our
> swedisg :-). But something that needs to be remembered is that blank
> media charges (which are being introduced EU-wide, but embedded in the
> price of the media rather than added on-top at the time of the purchase
> which is the canadian method) is to compensate the copyright holders for
> legal copying, ie fair use (US & Ca) and statutory private copying (EU).
> It is quite often journalists muddle this up as being a charge to
> compensate for illegal copying.
)
yeah, we're all too busy legalising pot and getting hockey back to worry about
such things :) Still, the levy applied to CD's DVD's etc is not so bad. I can
still purchase a spindle of 100 DVD for $59 CDN. it was worrying when they
considered charging for media that would be used in cameras, and for HD's that
were just being purchased for pc's. Then again, I guess our artists are
perhaps used to being poor (unless they file for US citizenship0
>
> But - as I said - copyright is as hot as ever in the European legal
> society and many believe it can help them walk on water in court
> proceedings. I wish we could sometime get back to the intention of
> copyright in the first place - top go give authors and other creators a
> fair compensation for their contribution to arts and culture and to give
> them a economic incentive to continue creating.
>
> Personally I believe that copyright-enforcement is turning into a farce
> in the US and in EU.

as a person who has to perform daily in order to meet demands, I just cant ever
support a 'royalty' sytem. as an engineer, anyting I come up with as an ida
while I'm with my current compant is owned by that company. why should I feel
sympathy for an artist who signs on with a label?

my feelings on p2p, is that its the same as it always was. We always traded mix
tapes. some of us made them just to pass on in hopes of getting laid (come on,
admit it). Computers and the digital age have mad so many things faster and
easier, so why not "tape trading"

why should the "industry" be able to say that they alone have the right to
benefit from the improvements in technology?

-kdf

Aaron Zinck
2005-03-04, 07:36
I appreciate everyone's responses and am understanding the situation a bit
better now. I do think it's time for the music industry to entirely
overhaul their cost and distribution structure to be more fair to the
artists and the consumers.

Something Christian wrote got me thinking and I wanted to respond:

"Christian Pernegger" wrote in message
> In the first case you hopefully get a big screen, nice sound, the cinema
> experience but only one showing - fine. But these are essentially canned
> goods that cost next to nothing to duplicate. About the only people
working
> for the money are the cinema staff in the first case. The work's the same
> for the artists regardless of the number of DVDs or tickets sold.
>
> A ticket at local theatres (as in live actorst) is 5-15 EUR (low end for
> students etc...)
>
> Excuse me?? That money has to pay the theatre staff, the writer, a bunch
of
> costumes and props people and most of all the actors who have to perform
> EVERY EVENING to earn their keep. But who cares, they're all subsidized
> anyway... </sarcasm>
>
> The price I have to pay for my entertainment has nothing to do with the
work
> involved in the first place - so much for artist compensation.

This isn't true at all. Certainly the one-time cost and the work that goes
into producing a high-quality movie is far greater than the amount that goes
into a play by a local theater even during the entire run of a show. The
price you pay for the entertainment is proportional to the work involved:
if low quality movies were made then theaters would charge less to see them.
Conversely, if the price of going to the movie theater were lowered to
simply the cost of keeping the building up and paying the ushers then we
would see a bunch of crappy movies since no one could afford to make $150
million productions (ok, I know, spending more money on a movie doesn't
always mean it's going to be better...but still...).

> If they want to earn my money they're free to WORK and do an open-air in
my
> general vincinity. Terribly sorry, but the value of something that can be
> reproduced for 50 cents is 50 cents.

This makes no sense. This totally disregards the value of any kind of
intellectual property. Just because what artists (or even consider
scientists at pharmaceutical companies) create while doing their WORK
doesn't take a physical form doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Would you
say that a 10 cent blank CD is equal in value to the same cd with music on
it? I think not. And how much in excess of 10 cents is to be determined by
the market. And right now the market has settled on $10~$15. New
technologies are changing things, but there still is value to the music.

John L Fjellstad
2005-03-05, 13:40
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote:

> There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
> decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means, if
> you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
> before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is was
> just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of such a
> thing is just vile.

If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it
wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc
directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert
a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled
with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or
whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA
or whatever your choice would be.

Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
industry.

--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkIqGSAACgkQkz0vhQtHHRhORACggRQBdVpfTb FnQ8AbaqqMQH6/
kF8An001uX+HHk9ofrAuXKIRGqZuZhQL
=pkFK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

kdf
2005-03-05, 13:58
Quoting John L Fjellstad <john-slimlist (AT) fjellstad (DOT) org>:

> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:57:35PM -0800, kdf wrote:
>
> > There was a recent ruling in Europe (not sure if it was EU-wide) that has
> > decided that copying from one format to another was illegal. This means,
> if
> > you buy a CD, you can only EVER copy it to another CD. I got too annoyed
> > before I could read the whole article in that case so I'm not sure if is
> was
> > just intrduced, or final legislation. To me, the very consideration of
> such a
> > thing is just vile.
>
> If we're thinking about the same thing, it was in Norway, and it
> wasn't a ruling. It's Norway's implementation of the EU's InfoSoc
> directive. Basically, as you mentioned, it will be illegal to convert
> a media from one format to another, so your IPod can only be filled
> with music you bought from an online store that was selling MP3 (or
> whatever the formats the IPod supports). No conversion to FLAC or WMA
> or whatever your choice would be.
>
> Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
> in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
> industry.

Thanks, that's sounds right. I wasn't having much luck trying to re-find the
article :)

-kdf

T
2005-03-05, 14:12
>> Basically, it's Norway implementing an EU directive they had no say
>> in, that was put into EU law after great lobbying by the recording
>> industry.

Of course they had no say in it, as they're not in the EU.

But why did they implement it, and in such a manner?

Tom

John L Fjellstad
2005-03-05, 15:10
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:12:35PM +0100, T wrote:

> Of course they had no say in it, as they're not in the EU.
>
> But why did they implement it, and in such a manner?

Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA (which is
kinda of a trade block, I guess. Haven't really looked into it).
Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their
members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives. Think of it
like taxation without representation. EFTA used to be a little more
powerful, with members like Sweden, Denmark, UK, Portugal, but since
those countries joined the EU, we have tiny countries like Norway and
Lichtenstein left with no say (personally somewhat frustrated because
the No to EU side, basically forced this agreement through. Their
argument being that Norway could have all the benefits of EU
membership without actually being a member). Norway could object to
implementing directives they didn't like, but the EU would certainly
penalize any objections, and since the trade block is too small, in
reality, Norway at this moment has no say.

As to why it got implemented in that manner, who knows? The law was
submitted by the Cultural Department as their interpretation of the
InfoSoc directive.

--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkIqLjkACgkQkz0vhQtHHRhVDQCfWvPWKp0NNi 2ki3OninpQIITG
p6gAn2PRwrhze+7i9Q1vs303dXQWrCE5
=8UAv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

T
2005-03-06, 01:55
> Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA
> Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their
> members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives.

Interesting, as we (Switzerland) are also members of EFTA, but I haven't
heard of Switzerland implementing such a law.

Tom

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jonas_Nordstr=F6m?=
2005-03-06, 04:19
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:59:43 +0100, Christian Pernegger
<pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> My SlimServer crashed twice on me today directly after the 'Searching...'
> display of a search via remote. I _think_ it triggers when the search string
> matches a string within a tag that is otherwise unprintable on the
> squeezebox display. The case at hand was a search for 'schwar', which should
> match the song title 'ユングフラウ
> schwarze katze version'. On the web interface this works (single match), via
> the remote it crashes the server with the following:
>
> If anyone else can reproduce it I'll file a bug report.
>
> C.
>
> 2005-03-05 21:48:39.5616 Null track request!
> 2005-03-05 21:48:39.5621 Backtrace:
>
> frame 0: Slim::DataStores::DBI::DBIStore::objectForUrl
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Music/Info.pm line 583)
> frame 1: Slim::Music::Info::standardTitle
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/BrowseID3.pm line 695)
> frame 2: Slim::Buttons::BrowseID3::lines
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Display/Display.pm line 120)
> frame 3: Slim::Display::Display::curLines
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Search.pm line 178)
> frame 4: Slim::Buttons::Search::startSearch
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Search.pm line 138)
> frame 5: Slim::Buttons::Search::searchHandler
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Input/Text.pm line 502)
> frame 6: Slim::Buttons::Input::Text::exitInput
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Input/Text.pm line 131)
> frame 7: Slim::Buttons::Input::Text::__ANON__
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 613)
> frame 8: Slim::Hardware::IR::executeButton
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Control/Command.pm line 572)
> frame 9: Slim::Control::Command::execute
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 637)
> frame 10: Slim::Hardware::IR::processCode
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 455)
> frame 11: Slim::Hardware::IR::processIR
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Control/Command.pm line 572)
> frame 12: Slim::Control::Command::execute
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 87)
> frame 13: Slim::Hardware::IR::idle (./slimserver.pl line 546)
> frame 14: main::idle (./slimserver.pl line 512)
> frame 15: main::main (./slimserver.pl line 1051)
>
> 2005-03-05 21:48:39.5623 Null track request!
> 2005-03-05 21:48:39.5626 Backtrace:
>
> frame 0: Slim::DataStores::DBI::DBIStore::objectForUrl
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Music/Info.pm line 396)
> frame 1: Slim::Music::Info::infoFormat
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Music/Info.pm line 619)
> frame 2: Slim::Music::Info::standardTitle
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/BrowseID3.pm line 695)
> frame 3: Slim::Buttons::BrowseID3::lines
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Display/Display.pm line 120)
> frame 4: Slim::Display::Display::curLines
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Search.pm line 178)
> frame 5: Slim::Buttons::Search::startSearch
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Search.pm line 138)
> frame 6: Slim::Buttons::Search::searchHandler
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Input/Text.pm line 502)
> frame 7: Slim::Buttons::Input::Text::exitInput
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/Input/Text.pm line 131)
> frame 8: Slim::Buttons::Input::Text::__ANON__
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 613)
> frame 9: Slim::Hardware::IR::executeButton
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Control/Command.pm line 572)
> frame 10: Slim::Control::Command::execute
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 637)
> frame 11: Slim::Hardware::IR::processCode
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 455)
> frame 12: Slim::Hardware::IR::processIR
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Control/Command.pm line 572)
> frame 13: Slim::Control::Command::execute
> (/opt/slimserver/Slim/Hardware/IR.pm line 87)
> frame 14: Slim::Hardware::IR::idle (./slimserver.pl line 546)
> frame 15: main::idle (./slimserver.pl line 512)
> frame 16: main::main (./slimserver.pl line 1051)
>
> Can't call method "moodlogic_mixable" on an undefined value at
> /opt/slimserver/Slim/Buttons/BrowseID3.pm line 697.
>
>

John L Fjellstad
2005-03-06, 12:02
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:55:39AM +0100, T wrote:
> >Although Norway is not part of the EU, it is a part of EFTA
> >Anyways, to get access to the EU's inner marked, EFTA (and their
> >members) agreed to implement EU's laws and directives.
>
> Interesting, as we (Switzerland) are also members of EFTA, but I haven't
> heard of Switzerland implementing such a law.

You know, I made a mistake. It's not EFTA, it's something called with
the acronym EØS in Norway (not sure what it would be in English,
probably European Econonmic Cooperationsone?) Switzerland and Norway
is part of EFTA, but only Norway (and a couple of other countries) are
part of EEC(?). As part of the EEC agreement, Norway promised to
implement all of EU's laws and directives. From what I can gather,
Switzerland has recently agreed to a similar deal.

Interesting enough, so far, of the EU members, only Denmark and Sweden
has implemented the directives into law, and they didn't have the format
conversion as part of their law (as far as I can figure out).

--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkIrU60ACgkQkz0vhQtHHRh0vACbBrudj0UWh9 8k+OZudQVKLQON
YVwAoMYKzy4LcZXmnab5lsLxdpoddHzM
=qnsm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----