Is P2P now illegal?

Loud Orange Cat

Loud Orange Cat

Pro Member
indiePRO
In this current article: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/index.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that companies that sell file-sharing software can be held liable for copyright infringement.

Does this mean I'm not able to distribute my own productions via P2P networks?

Am I liable for someone else's illegal use of P2P if I purposely use P2P to legally distribute my works I own the copyright to?

Scary.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Upvote 0 Downvote
mrde50 said:
Argh. What's next?!
Click to expand...

I'd say the ruling against display of the Ten Commandments ranks up there.

The original "common carrier" perspective on cable lines was warped to begin with. Stringing cable lines through a city is expensive and someone put them there - they didn't commonly materialize from the void. As a matter of fact, most cities and towns charge the cable companies a fee for allowing access to right-of-ways for the cable lines - so much for "common carrier."

But the whole business of municipalities and states being able to claim land... that's the kind of thing revolutions are fought over. Either the concept of private land ownership exists or it doesn't. The Supremes ruled that land is only owned by favor of the state. Not good. But at least it stirs the imagination for some possible movie plots.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And, tecnically, the ruling wasn't in favor of MGM vs file-sharing - it rejected the lower courts decision to dismiss the suit. The Supreme Court just ruled that there should be a trial. They did lean towards the side of the studios but they we not giving final judgement on whether the file sharing service/software folks were violating copyright laws. The Supreme Court said that if Grokster intended it's software to trade copyrighted material, they were liable. That'll be the case. "Intent" is tricky, it'll be interesting to watch.

Bottom line is, the entertainment industry is hurting and they'd better figure out a way to embrace the different models of electronic distribution, not supress them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And, not to get too political here, but if we don't hold gun manufacturers liable, or people who make cop-killer bullets liable when, you know, it seems they make guns for killing. Why would you hold a software maker liable? If you make a weapon capable of piercing police armour, who do you think will buy and use it? Even if you don't put "Hey, buy my gun and kill a cop" in your ad, the intent is to get through kevlar and how many burglars wear kevlar?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mrde50 said:
Argh. What's next?!
Click to expand...

...what's next? The police cannot be sued for the force that they use to restrain suspects....I'm not making this up. I had to make a news graphic for it. There have been enough incidents of questionable restraint where I live that this kind of sounds as though the intention is to go unchecked...

...I'm not sure what I think of this, but there have been deaths due to certain amounts of force and restraint. So what happens if the police get the wrong person and something bad happens....

--spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There always needs to be some kind of balance between the needs of the order and cooperation (the insitutions) and the rights of the individual. You need law and order, positions of authority need the freedom to act and protect, or film studios need to be compensated for the product they create. BUT, the problem with power is that it tends to concentrate in the hands of a few who can then abuse it or use that authority to stifle individual creativity. That's a long-winded way of saying "Power corrupts." I firmly come down on protecting the rights of the individual - authority must be questioned and held accountable and I distrust ANY power that resists that questioning.

There is nothing wrong with making money but the movie "business" is just that, churning out product to create profits and doing everything they can to hold on to the monoply of their market share. When you apply that as the driving force in what is essentially a creative process, you get multiplexes full of "Dukes of Hazzard" and "Bewitched", focus group, name recognition movies. Indie filmaking at least has the promise of truly individual storymaking that is more vibrant and vital than the average Hollywood "product."

And the industry chasing after file sharing is an example of their desire to maintain the status quo. I think they are making a mistake, long-term they cannot defeat technology.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rrk1962 said:
There is nothing wrong with making money but the movie "business" is just that, churning out product to create profits and doing everything they can to hold on to the monoply of their market share.
Click to expand...
Even us independent movie makers are guilty of this. Some of us anyway.

I have always treated movie making as a business. My goal is to make a living and protect my ability to do so. So far file sharing hasn't affected most of us small movie makers because the movies we make aren't in huge demand.

But as a producer who relies on the small profit made on each DVD/VHS sold, file sharing scares the hell out of me. One person buys a copy, rips it and puts it on a P2P for anyone to get for free. On one hand it's cool that maybe a few hundred people now see my movie, but I don't get than money.

It's easy to point at the rich "Hollywood" studios and producers. But this is going to soon affect all of us by lowering the demand for our product. Why pay for it when you can share it?

I have no solution. I can't even fathom one. But it scares me anyway.

But then I remember the early 1980's when big studios like Fox and Disney were petitioning the government to restrict video rentals. They thought video was going to be the end of theatrical production.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
I have always treated movie making as a business. My goal is to make a living and protect my ability to do so. So far file sharing hasn't affected most of us small movie makers because the movies we make aren't in huge demand.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with making money, or even making a film with the idea of profit rather than art. There is room for all of it. If I could make a living out of it, I sure would. For smaller producers, file-sharing is a low-cost way to create buzz. I'm sure it does impact sales numbers to a degree but the struggle for us is recognition, marketing, branding. Hell, someone wants to pirate me, I'm complimented because my name is out there. It is really different than someone shoplifting from Wal-Mart because you aren't losing an irreplaceable product that cost money to create. You may not even be losing revenue because the person downloading may not ever have paid for that dvd. I'm not saying that it's kosher and I honestly have never used any of the services. Too bulky, too slow, too much hastle, too easy to rent/buy the real deal.

I guess my point is to try and use that, embrace that community because your fear is well-founded. It could have a negative impact if you just ignore it or try to outlaw it. Integrate it with all the traditional ways you distribute and profit from your work. The last 5 years of technology development have made it possible for this kind of forum and this culture to thrive and grow and different models of distribution will certainly emerge. As smaller players, we should have more flexibility to adapt, innovate and use them.

Digital means freedom, baby, yeahhhh, and that's just groovey.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think that the situation is more complex that it appears.

Rather than being a straight choice between buying and stealing, the reality of P2P is the same as home taping, in that people divide media into stuff they're prepared to pay for and stuff that they're not. So in the same week, hypothetically I might decide to go to a cinema to see the film X, buy film Y and record Z, but try out film J buy P2Ping a copy of it. (As I said hypothetically, not admission of bad boy naughtiness.) I'd be very surprised if those who P2P make any alteration in their average spends on media, they just have a lot of stuff they didn't pay for.

I think regulation and litigation to control is always the last resort of the incompetent. What interests me are creative strategies to take advatage of the situation commercially.

As I've mentioned in another thread I'm promoting and shaping a girl rock band at the moment. One of the strategies we're discussing is giving the band's music away for free via podcasting and P2P and earning money in other ways. For instance, giving away the single on P2P but printing a limited edition vinyl version and selling that at a collector's price.

At the end of the day the trick is to make a product that has sufficient value for a large number of people to move it into their "I will pay for that category."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
Rather than being a straight choice between buying and stealing, the reality of P2P is the same as home taping...

...At the end of the day the trick is to make a product that has sufficient value for a large number of people to move it into their "I will pay for that category."
Click to expand...

I completely agree. In the long run, it could be a great leveler so that people with limited resources but with talent can compete.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clive said:
As I've mentioned in another thread I'm promoting and shaping a girl rock band at the moment. One of the strategies we're discussing is giving the band's music away for free via podcasting and P2P and earning money in other ways. For instance, giving away the single on P2P but printing a limited edition vinyl version and selling that at a collector's price.
Click to expand...

This is why the RIAA should be killed completely and replaced with strategies like this. There's also concert performaces, merchandies (can't download a t-shirt, must purchase it).

I think P2P can also be used for music the way trailers are for movies. Release a single via P2P and then send everyone to Itunes or some other pay-per-play service. People WILL pay for stuff they want, IF the price is reasonable. And apparently people think $1 per songs is reasonable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Very true, guys. The trick isn't to outlaw these methods- it's to make your product more appealing for purchase with creative extras. I'll take the "bad boy" stance and admit that I have downloaded movies and music. More often music than movies.
Thing is, about 80% of the stuff I've downloaded, I've already bought, I just don't feel like transferring to my PC. There's also products which can't be purchased anymore, or products which have been damaged or lost. A lot of software companies allow you to download thier product in full, and use a software registration key to unlock the full program, while allowing you access to a demo version. Perhaps something along those lines could be utilized in the future for movies and music.
I think it's a quality issue. There's not enough incentive to buy a $30-50 DVD unless there is sufficient incentive- like extra features.
I downloaded Episode 3 on my computer because I simply can't afford to see it in theatres again. I fully intend to buy the special edition DVD of all the Star Wars movies when they come out. Lucas isn't loosing any money from that- if I couldn't download it, I would simply wait until the DVD.
The point is to make the purchase seem rewarding... but a lot of products coming out just don't have that appeal. They lack.

I'm a bad boy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Spatula said:
I'll take the "bad boy" stance and admit that I have downloaded movies and music. More often music than movies.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time I did download lot of music, some from albums that I legally owned but couldn't transfer and lots of jazz that I couldn't really afford. In some ways it's like loaning a friend cd and saying, hey, listetn to this. If there songs or artists I liked, I bought them and the music industry made money off of me because I was able to explore a genre that I now love. It's the same theory, I hear stuff that had such value that I wanted to buy it but I'd never have learned that because I can't afford $15 a pop for something I may or may not enjoy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top