The representatives for both the entertainment industry, and the P2P companies Grokster and Streamcast Networks gave their statements in the landmark P2P case. The arguments were presented before a three-judge panel for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California.
The entertainment industry called for blocks and filters to be implemented in P2P software limiting the ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
All cars sold in the USA must have a device that strictly limits the top speed of the vehicle to 65mph, otherwise people can break the law with them.
Think the entertainment industry execs with their Jaguars would go for that one? Same argument far as I can tell. One more butt-load from the entertainment lawyers...
It is the typical thought mode of the RIAA. We have a problem, you should fix it for us. While you are at it, please pay for whatever it takes as we want to keep our money. Now that we think about it, why don't you develop some software for filters, we don't know how to do it but surely you will come up with it, we have faith in you doing the right thing. (or lawyers to try and make you do so even if it is not possible) We see no problem in this...
Napster tried filters b4 there were shut down. The filter arguement was meant to shut down Napster. Instead they need to find a way so that the Ad-Supportive software built into these p2p applications help to compensate the artists. If this were to happen at least people might not complain as much about bannar ads. But the RIAA never figured this out. Might take them 10 years while us real p2p users figured this out back in 1998 when they decided to kill Napster. In fact Napster was offering to do this very thing and the RIAA decided not to agree with the deal. As long as they are in full control they are happy. And if not they want to shut down whom ever is in direct competition with them.
