Comments | winters500: MGM v. Grokster

winters500

MGM v. Grokster

Jun 30, 2005 12:48

The Supreme Court has finally and unanimously spoken, though they didn't say a whole lot. If I understand the proceedings correctly, this means merely that the trial now continues. Usman (or anyone else), have you read about this yet? I agreed w/ Justice Breyer's comments the most, probably ( Read more... )

Comments 2

storyofthealamo June 30 2005, 22:06:01 UTC

That is most definitely ironic to me, and strange, that the case is being characterized as you say. Well, I am taking your word for that, as I have only read/heard a few reports on the case, and I didn't really ge that sense in those particular reports (mostly NPR).
In my mind the case was at first huge corporations versus everyone else. Then it evolved into two money grabbing groups just trying to rip someone else off to make a buck, and now fighting over who is allowed to do it their way.
I really am sick of big corporations trying to control music. I am not quite sick of people getting free music through file-sharing services, but I have a hard time rooting for people's ability to "grab, grab, grab!" and have/experience whatever they want, at any time, for free or at least dirt cheap. Maybe it's the mennonite in me growing, but simplicity is gaining a great importance in my life, though it is taking practical hold very, very slowly (but surely!). I hope i don't give up on this track.

Creativity vs. Technology winters500 July 4 2005, 08:47:51 UTC

Yeah, that's pretty much how the Supreme Court sees it. Let me clarify a little bit, though: they see copyrights, including digital copyrights, as the means whereby artists are protected, economically speaking. If intellectual property were not protected from new technologies, so the story goes, all art could be freely copied and distributed, as soon as we gain the technological capability. Because the artist would no longer be compensated, creating art would become economically prohibitive. In other words, if artists couldn't make money selling their art, no one would want to be an artist, which would then, in turn, be a detriment to society, since society needs art ( ... )