What exactly did the Grokster advertisements state? If it was something so
blatantly stupid like "download our client to get free pirated movies
instead of paying for them" then boo hoo, capitalistic darwinism strikes
again.
At some point people here need to realize that 99.9999999999999999999% of
what is being downloaded on P2P networks is pirated material, and that is an
injustice, no matter how evil you percieve the music/movie industries. P2P
software will always be around but companies that are dumb enough to
instruct you on how to acquire pirated media deserve zero sympathy.
Should gun companies be allowed to show how to use a firearm to rob a bank?
(The 0-60 comparison post is way off the mark)
From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List <hardware@hardwaregroup.com>
To: j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The Hardware List
<hardware@hardwaregroup.com>
Subject: Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster,
Ltd.,et al.
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:46:01 -0400
They should just sue the internet for making it easy to pirate movies.
I wish people would stop going to the movies and stop buying music in
response to these stupid lawsuits. Ultimately, fair-use rights are going to
be eliminated, and we'll all be forced to live in a safe, happy DRM land,
where the thought police kill you if you press the "record" button when
you're not allowed to.
j m g wrote:
But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
the first place. They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
software vendors.
My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
reckless driving? Can they be sued for it?
What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
responsibility. A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
fears.
