Posted by Jason Schultz

When links between policy and economic hardship cannot be proven, or between cigarettes and cancer cannot be proven, or between industrial wasted and wildlife mutation cannot be proven, congress usually refuses to act until positive proof is laid out before them.

But whenever copyright industires state there are links which they cannot substantiate, there are deaths due to trampling in the race to "aid" them from the "evil consumer".

In this case, they will ram through induce, and then refuse to acknowledge the connection between the law and the severe economic damage it causes.

Theyll blame the erratic and recessive behavior of the economy on a meriad of other things before finally, possibly decades in the future, admitting to their mistake. By then, of course, the damage will have been fully wrought.

Permalink to Comment

I find it interesting how Sony is one of the plaintiffs while the Sony-Betamax case is used as the cornerstone precedent from which the ruling draws.

A very interesting illustration the old adage "be careful what you wish for."

It is very refreshing to see a ruling by a court that so clearly and competently (did I use "competently" to describe a court in the year 2004???) understands the issues at hand and applies relevant common sense and applicable precedence to make a ruling.

Permalink to Comment

I AM THE WAREZ MASTER - GIVE ME DA WAREZ!!

Permalink to Comment

"I find it interesting how Sony is one of the plaintiffs while the Sony-Betamax case is used as the cornerstone precedent from which the ruling draws."

Crusher, you may want to read a blog post by Cory Doctorow earlier this year, called Sony's entertainment business is killing its electronics business, which nicely sums up why Sony made an about-face, and how it's going to hurt them.

As far as I can tell, it's got little to do with "be careful what you wish for," and more with Sony turning into a different company. The Sony of today would have sued the Sony of the Betamax years, not because they learned something in the years inbetween, but because they changed their goals.

Apple is going through something similar, except in their case it should be called "Steven Jobs' entertainment portfolio is going to kill Apple's electronics business".

(Of course, Cory could be wrong, but to me his analysis seems to make sense.)

Permalink to Comment

EFF wins Grockster case from Joi Ito's Web Xeni @ Boing BoingEFF wins GroksterBig news: The EFF prevails in the long-fought Grokster case. Court decision is available here (PDF). Link to 9th Circuit Court of appeals ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, issued August 19, 2004.This is great... [Read More]

Tracked on August 19, 2004 01:36 PM

Grokster Wins Big in 9th Circuit from The Importance of... The Ninth Circuit has upheld the district court decision in Grokster. Read the 26-page decision: MGM v. Grokster [PDF] . Read it. The decision isn't really all that long, it is single column formatted with 8 pages of administive gobbledygook.... [Read More]

Tracked on August 19, 2004 02:08 PM

RE: EFF wins Grokster from verns blog [Read More]

Tracked on August 19, 2004 04:26 PM

EFF Wins Grokster Case! HOORAY!!!!! from SOLID HANG | BLOG Everyone in the world REJOICE!!!! The RIAA and MPAA have lost a critical case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. What does this mean for you and me? It means p2p software is not a crime!!!! It means the... [Read More]

Tracked on August 19, 2004 07:17 PM

The Grokster case from Chromatic Musings I'm late to the party -- day gig work and all, so there's not much I can add to this rather momentous case that other people haven't already said time and time again. So, instead, I think I'll just do... [Read More]

Tracked on August 20, 2004 04:01 AM

POST A COMMENT

Name:

Email:

URL:

Comments:

Remember personal info? YesNo

EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):