Well, if you are a subscriber to the man as machine philosophy, and personal responsibility does not exist, as some would have it, yes. We would need to get rid of all implements of possible harm. For instance, this pencil on my desk in front of me, could very well, somehow, get jammed into my nose. don't laugh. Its the same thing.

If one does not have the abilitly to commit a crime, to be given the choice, one is not free. Of course, there are a few who believe 'we the little people' shouldn't be given the freedom of self thought, because they have it all 'figured out.'

File sharing is not protected constitutionally, the 2nd amendment is. (for now)

I'm hoping that this ruling's upside is a possible legal attack on gun manufacturers' self-serving belief that the average citizen should have access to more and more destrucive and efficient weaponry. But the ruling was intentionally very tightly defined as "...with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright." The linking of the two (guns and filesharing) may make conceptual sense, but probably makes less legal sense. Also, the argument that will most likely be used to dismantle an attack on gun manufacturers: ownership of guns has its own Amendment*. Whereas filesharing (or its conceptual equivalent) does not. Though the ninth Amendment** would be the obvious retort, I suppose.

As for the case specifically, I'd posit that it's not a matter of valuing one over the other, per se, but a matter of one being a scary new technology that affects commerce in new and unfamiliar ways (to those involved in the legal battle), whereas the other is a long-entrenched political thicket. From my understanding, Grokster really got nailed because they were foolish with their self-promotion. They made it clear enough that violating copyright law through filesharing with Grokster was part of its purpose. If they'd been more mindful (as Apple is with its iPod), they probably would've been able to at least stage a stronger counter-attack. I understand the danger of the ruling, but I'm not sure I disagree with the specific instance that spawned it.

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

**"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Eric,

Once again you are changing the subject: nobody said anything about getting guns off the streets. The question was about where the responsibility (or blame) for the use or misuse of technology starts and ends. Crugen's comment addressesd that topic, and did so intelligently.

And exactly who is "the intellectual" to whom you refer, and what was "the one word remark"?

1st reply. "...one word, money"

I'll take me leave, I was a little off topic, but I was going for the heart of the matter.
Thanks for understanding
_

Yeah, and everybody stop using GIFs. CompuServe is going to come after you. All of you!

The funniest thing, to me, is how much old-school minds (in the entertainment industry) try to twist and contort everything around them to avoid the winds of change, instead of grabbing on to the tail of this ship that's riding the jet stream and profiting in a different way (like preventing their CDs from being copied to iPods). Young media companies/execs who aren't afraid of changing their business model will eventually stomp all over the old behemoths, if the behemoths don't start to integrate change.

Whatever. Eventually it'll either A) change as a means of survival or B) become so draconian as to be ridiculous and then change anyway for pretty much the same reasons. The cat's out of the bag. To paraphrase something I once heard: trying to take something off of the internet is like trying take pee out of a pool.

As for the gun thing, to sue the manufacturers you'd have to show that they intend for the weapon to be used illegally, and since wounding and killing isn't illegal, just murder and assault, you'd be hard pressed to make a case. It's got little to nothing to do with "personal responsibility" (a term that sounds great until you put it into practice, kind of like "corporate accountability"). It's about intent. You'd have to come up with internal documents akin to those used in the cases against the tobacco industry.

aluminum, your question about whether or not, by extending the tortured logic of the music industry's argument, a type designer might be held accountable for the uses of his/her typeface is an interesting one. Hate mail is one possibility, but I would like to suggest another: what if someone designed a typeface and named it "Bomb Threat." Then, what if someone actually did make a bomb threat using that typeface. By choosing the name, did the designer encourage the behavior?

Manson was not [primarily] named after Charles.

hhp

> Manson was not [primarily] named after Charles.

I remember Barnbrook saying it was, actually, but maybe he left something out.
Could You fill us in?

ƒ

Holding gun manufacturers liable for shooting deaths is one chosen court tactic at attacking the second ammendment. I'm not sure Eric was off topic at all...

That said, I don't see any gun manufacturers advertising or promoting shooting people - they promote "carrying" as a means of self protection. By the same token, I don't see Gnutella or Grokster or anybody else promoting the sharing of copyrighted materials. What does the Supreme Court see?

Personal responsibility? What a concept. Reminds me of the woman who sued McDonald's for being burned by her coffee. Whoa, you mean coffee is hot and I shouldn't put it in my lap and drive?

On the topic of the music industry. Look at the iPod versus the Walkman. iPod has beaten the pants off Walkman because it embraces the way people are consuming music and then makes a profitable (and protectable with DRM) business model out of it.

If the record companies truly believe in copyrights and licensing, why is it I have to pay $20 for a CD that I already have vinyl of? Didn't I already pay for the rights to listen to the music? Shouldn't the CD price be just a few bucks just to upgrade the media?

Joe,

Please: this is not a Second-Amendment issue. The original proposal never suggested taking guns away from people: it simply asked if gunmakers ought not be held to the same standards of accountability as software makers, if their products are misused. And, no, gunmakers don't promote their products as killing machines – their lawyers would never let them. But if you visit any number of gun review sites (which I did out of curiosity), there are a boatload of folks out there who will gladly tell you just how effective this model or that model is in blowing someone away.

And, in the unlikely event that gunmakers were ever to be held accountable for the lives their products took or ruined, such liability would be probably handled as a civil matter, so the gunmakers would do what the tobacco companies have done – pay big fines, then raise their prices to make their consumers pick up the costs. Then, it wouldn't be only outlaws who had guns: it would be only rich guys who had guns.

Finally, let's put the Second Amendment in perspective. The American Revolution was an armed rebellion against what a significant-enough majority of colonists considered to be tyrannical rule. Thus, the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to ensure that citizens would not be deprived of the ability of unseating any future tyranny, should the need arise. But do you seriously think for one minute that, in today's world, if a sufficiently widespread movement sprung up to unseat the US government by force of arms, that the Second Amendment wouldn't be the first Constitutional right to be suspended? Food for thought...

On the one hand fast-food coffee & hot chocolate & tea are always prepared at temperatures beyond what we would do at home so it will stay warm longer. Most people know this. However, in the case of the woman receiving burns, I'm glad that McD's has taken responsibility of their negligence to make the consumer aware by posting on their drive through window a notice. (No doubt in response to the afore-mentioned case.)

Slight switch: There is a forum whose users all seem to use bit-torrent or something similar to share large volumes of fonts. Absolutely insane, really. But, the software can't be blamed for the use. On the other hand the ISP hosting these pirates should be held responsible, especially after receiving multiple warnings.

the software can’t be blamed for the use...ISP hosting these pirates should be held responsible

Should the phone company be responsible for allowing people to commit fraud via the phone?

Wired article on Bit-Torrent: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,68046,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

I don't know, NIck. Most service providers, in my experience, don't care much about individual customers. They wouldn't think twice about loosing one or two "bad apples" if it protected bigger business issues (like no bad publicity).

__
www.typeoff.de

Dan,

The critical detail in your comments is "most service providers..." I would counter that the incredible number of ISPs willing to host the most obnoxious/vile/disgusting websites (yes: the comments is terribly judgmental, and it's all a matter of taste) might lead one to the conclusion that bad publicity doesn't really bother them. But, if you can convince their customers to jump ship, their tune might change...

An interesting type question. Guns, e.g. have many more uses than killing innocent people and while killing innocent people is (generally considered), far more hurtful to Soc. than (c) infringement, Grokster el al have no other purpose than endangering, and stealing artists rights, while just about everyone knows, in a pinch, a gun can make punctuation or ornaments.

There is a puposefully vague statement in that ruling that pretty much allows the court to find any distributor liable:
"…or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement…"
Who defines these affirmative steps? The court. So basically they just say whatever you were doing was an affirmative step, and then you are guilty.

Yet another reason we cannot let Bush pack the Supreme Court with whoever he wants. Republican or Democrat, you have to agree that it is detrimental to democracy.

Yet another reason we cannot let Bush pack the Supreme Court with whoever he wants. Republican or Democrat, you have to agree that it is detrimental to democracy.

What was the reason?

What was the reason?

A vehement policy that gives preferential treatment to corporate interests over individual's rights.

The court case is being made out to be bigger than it is. The decision was clearly aimed at companies that sell software using the 'sales pitch' that you can infringe copyrights with it.

So, if sony started selling VCRs with the ad campaign 'make copies of your DVDs and sell them on the streets of New York' then they'd be liable.

That said, traditionally, the courts have either simply not understood new technologies and how they should be handled, or the MP/RIAA simply have so much money that they can win any argument simply through bigger/better lawyers. Bush, himself, doesn't necessarily play a big role (though he hasn't stopped things like the FCC from becoming simple Corporate assistants), but folks like Orrin Hatch are the HUGE problem.

In all seriousness, though. I would be really sad if someone decided that Bittorrent should be illegal.

Yes. I agree. I also agree that it probably won't happen. In a similar vein, you could consider FontLab. Some people use it in an illegal way, but you couldn't blame the FontLab boys for this. Again, it all goes back to personal responsibility, personal HUMAN responsibility. That is why I think ISPs should be held responsible once informed of the illegal activity.

Darrel, I don't disagree that larger ISPs should be able to allow their customers privacy. But, don't you think that they should research it to see if in fact the claims are real? If the claims aren't real then the so-called threat is bogus anyway.

f the record companies truly believe in copyrights and licensing, why is it I have to pay $20 for a CD that I already have vinyl of? Shouldn’t the CD price be just a few bucks just to upgrade the media?

record companies thought vinyl would essentially die out with the advent of the cd, and so re-released artists' entire back catalogues on cd to make some more money and revive flagging sales.

the opposite seems to be happening now - vinyl is becoming trendy again, with picture disks, limited edition 7" (or 9" if you're 9inch nails) and back-catalogue items sitting on most large chain stores. and over here in the uk, it's often cheaper to buy the cd than the vinyl. for instance, at hmv one can purchase the cd of british sea power's "open season" fo 8.99, or the vinyl for 12.99.