What is my opinion when it comes to the Supreme Court? I am not quite sure I have a firm stance on way or the other. It is probably more honest to say I have mixed opinions about the Supreme Court. First of all, I don’t think the genders, races, sexes, or creeds of America are truly represented by the nine current Chief Justices. Moreover, I don’t think the Supreme Court has ever honestly been a good representation of the people they pass judgment on. This is a BIG issue. There are not enough women, minorities, or people of different creeds on the court. How can 8 or 9 white men relate to the needs and feelings of African-Americans or Mexican-American? I do not believe they can. Secondly, I do not really know where I personally draw the line on what kinds of cases the Supreme Court should or should not hear. This is a very finicky issue. I feel on certain issues like abortion and the death penalty should be heard by the court. But other issues like the legalization of marijuana and local laws should be decided amongst the state courts. I am no lawyer, so I could be wrong about my opinions on some of these things.
A prime example of the Supreme Court doing something I do not think they should have happened about 8 years ago. They got to choose the United States of America’s next president. I do not feel they have that right to decide something so important. And not only did they get to decide, but they chose the opposite candidate that the majority of the American people had voted for. What part of the game is that? This is exactly why I do not feel the Supreme Court is truly honest and fair. And I definitely do not think they represent the 100 percent goodwill of the people.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Supreme Court-Part 3 Decision of the court
"The Court has made clear in its decision that services whose clear intent is to foster infringement are liable for the illegal behavior of third parties using their software. As the Court stated, 'The unlawful objective is unmistakable.'"BMI has been at the forefront of licensing music for digital transmission, and this ruling today will strengthen the environment for legitimate businesses.On June 27, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in a precedent setting case concerning peer to peer file sharing. The Court overturned the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and held in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of MGM, et al. v. Grokster, Ltd. The Court ruled that services whose clear intent is to foster infringement are liable for the illegal behavior of third parties using their software.The primary issue was whether Grokster intentionally induced infringement. The unanimous decision (9-0) of the Court was that distributors of peer-to-peer file sharing software may be liable for inducing copyright infringement even if the software is capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which was the test set forth in the Sony Betamax case. The Court stated that .one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. After explaining that the defendants Grokster and StreamCast Networks, Inc. distribute free software products that allow computer users to share electronic files through peer-to peer networks, the court stated that MGM brought suit, alleging that the defendants should be held responsible for the copyright infringement of their users, because they knowingly enabled the users to infringe.Grokster and StreamCast conceded the infringement in most downloads, and there was considerable evidence that they advised recipients to download copyrighted works and encouraged infringement. Nevertheless, the District Court held that the distribution of the software didnt give rise to any liability because the use of the software did not provide the defendants with actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement. The Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion, saying that a defendant would be liable as a contributory infringer when it had knowledge of direct infringement and materially contributed to the infringement. Furthermore, they were not liable under the theory of vicarious liability either, because the defendants did not monitor or control the use of the software, had no agreed-upon right or current ability to supervise its use, and had no independent duty to police infringement.The Court explained that there was clearly a tension between supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection, and promoting innovation. But the court recognized that the argument for imposing indirect liability in this case is, however, a powerful one, given the number of infringing downloads that occur every day using StreamCasts and Groksters software. When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement.http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/234484
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Week 1 My real feelings about lawyers
I have mixed feelings when it comes to whether or not I like lawyers. There are a few different factors that come into play when deciding if I like a lawyer or not. The first thing I want to know is if he or she is a defense attorney or a prosecutor. This is a big deal to me, and there is a huge difference between the two. If the lawyer is a prosecutor I tend to not like them because I believe that Constitution of the United States was not written “by the people and for the people.” It was written by white people and for white people. Therefore, if someone is working to send even a truly guilty man to prison, or make them pay a fine as a penalty for a crime in this country I do not like that type of lawyer. Maybe one day if we rewrite the laws of this land I will be more willing to like prosecutors.
When it comes to defense attorneys I am a much bigger fan. Obviously for the same reasons I am not too fond of the prosecutor is the exact reason why I like the defense attorney. If you can help a person receive a lighter sentence, or even prevent any penalty being enforced I am all for it. I do have two concerns when it comes to the defense side though. One, I do not like the fact that they charge such expensive prices. I do understand that they are providing a service that is worth a nice amount of money, but many of these lawyers over charge their clients. I despise this. This is the reason many people do not like lawyers because we feel they have many “crooked” ways. The second concern I have is defending guilty people and knowing that the person is guilty. This is another shady part of the justice system. That’s why the more money you have, the better the lawyer is, and it also can mean they are more shady in their dealings.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Supreme Court-Part 2 Issues of the Case
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005) is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court unanimously held that defendant P2P file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast (maker of Morpheus) could be sued for inducing copyright infringement for acts taken in the course of marketing file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 of the largest entertainment companies (led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios).
The case is frequently characterized as a re-examination of the issues in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a case that protected VCR manufacturers from liability for contributory infringement. MGM wants makers of file sharing technology held liable for their users' copyright infringements. In Sony, the court held that technology could not be barred if it was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
Grokster came before the Supreme Court having already won in two previous courts. The United States District Court for the Central District of California originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the Betamax decision. Then a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the lower court's decision after acknowledging that P2P software has legitimate and legal uses. Sharman Networks' Kazaa file sharing program was originally amongst the defendants, but was dropped because the company is based in Vanuatu.
Computer and Internet technology companies such as Intel, and trade associations including firms such as Yahoo! and Microsoft, filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the file sharing companies, while the RIAA and MPAA both sided with MGM. A list of briefs filed in the case is available at copyright.gov and eff.org. Billionaire Mark Cuban partially financed Grokster's fight before the Supreme Court.[1]
During oral argument, the Supreme Court justices appeared divided between the need to protect new technologies and the need to provide remedies against copyright infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that inventors would be chilled from entering the market by the threat of immediate lawsuits. Justice David Souter questioned how the interpretation of the law the plaintiffs argued for would affect devices like copy machines or the iPod.
The music industry suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster, to which Souter replied, "I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod. But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."[2] On the other hand, the justices seemed troubled at the prospect of ruling that Grokster's alleged business model of actively inducing infringement and then reaping the commercial benefits was shielded from liability. Grokster argued that affirming the Ninth Circuit would only prevent an injunction against future use of the P2P software, while the plaintiffs would still be free to pursue damages in the district court for alleged past wrongful acts. Much of the Court, however, expressed skepticism that Grokster's continuing enterprise could be severable from the consequences of those prior acts.
The case is frequently characterized as a re-examination of the issues in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), a case that protected VCR manufacturers from liability for contributory infringement. MGM wants makers of file sharing technology held liable for their users' copyright infringements. In Sony, the court held that technology could not be barred if it was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
Grokster came before the Supreme Court having already won in two previous courts. The United States District Court for the Central District of California originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the Betamax decision. Then a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the lower court's decision after acknowledging that P2P software has legitimate and legal uses. Sharman Networks' Kazaa file sharing program was originally amongst the defendants, but was dropped because the company is based in Vanuatu.
Computer and Internet technology companies such as Intel, and trade associations including firms such as Yahoo! and Microsoft, filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the file sharing companies, while the RIAA and MPAA both sided with MGM. A list of briefs filed in the case is available at copyright.gov and eff.org. Billionaire Mark Cuban partially financed Grokster's fight before the Supreme Court.[1]
During oral argument, the Supreme Court justices appeared divided between the need to protect new technologies and the need to provide remedies against copyright infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that inventors would be chilled from entering the market by the threat of immediate lawsuits. Justice David Souter questioned how the interpretation of the law the plaintiffs argued for would affect devices like copy machines or the iPod.
The music industry suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster, to which Souter replied, "I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod. But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."[2] On the other hand, the justices seemed troubled at the prospect of ruling that Grokster's alleged business model of actively inducing infringement and then reaping the commercial benefits was shielded from liability. Grokster argued that affirming the Ninth Circuit would only prevent an injunction against future use of the P2P software, while the plaintiffs would still be free to pursue damages in the district court for alleged past wrongful acts. Much of the Court, however, expressed skepticism that Grokster's continuing enterprise could be severable from the consequences of those prior acts.
Week 9 EOC-Illicit Products
Illicit products are everywhere. Sometimes it is a purse/handbag, luggage, clothes, and shoes. There are other types of illicit products like prescription medications, illegal drugs, weapons, car parts, and computers. This is a very dangerous industry. The profits that fund these large illicit networks are usually used to fund terrorist groups and Drug Cartels. These groups use the money to buy weapons, drugs, more ways to manufacture a product, and even political power through bribery. Counterfeiting and piracy are terms used to describe a range of illicit activities linked to intellectual property rights infringement. Counterfeiting thrives on the whole process of globalization, since globalization is the spread of capital and know-how to new markets. This in turn contributes low cost labour to create the ideal export machinery, manufacturing first low cost, low value-added products and then moving up the value chain. This is the story of Southeast Asia. It is also the story of China. Now it is the story of fake products. Counterfeiting delivers the benefits of skilled labour, good distribution and product technology without the associated investment in costly research, development and marketing in products that are not genuine brands.
We, ourselves, generally overlook or do not think about these facts when we are in a situation to buy an illicit good. At that exact moment, all we are thinking about is getting a cheap deal on the “knock-off” that we are considering purchasing. For example, a friend of mine wants to buy a pair of Nike Air Jordan sneakers. He cannot afford the official store price of the shoes which is roughly $150.00. On the other hand, he can afford the fake pair of shoes which look virtually identical, and that cost only $50.00. Why shouldn’t he do it? What is to stop him? The answers to these questions are not simple yes or no’s. We need to examine the illicit market more to further understand it, and maybe one day reduce the high demand for the cheaper fake goods.
We, ourselves, generally overlook or do not think about these facts when we are in a situation to buy an illicit good. At that exact moment, all we are thinking about is getting a cheap deal on the “knock-off” that we are considering purchasing. For example, a friend of mine wants to buy a pair of Nike Air Jordan sneakers. He cannot afford the official store price of the shoes which is roughly $150.00. On the other hand, he can afford the fake pair of shoes which look virtually identical, and that cost only $50.00. Why shouldn’t he do it? What is to stop him? The answers to these questions are not simple yes or no’s. We need to examine the illicit market more to further understand it, and maybe one day reduce the high demand for the cheaper fake goods.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Week 8 EOC
What is the problem with SPAM?I hate spam. Most spam is irritating and time-consuming, but some spam is positively dangerous to handle. Usually email scams are trying to get you to give up your bank details so that the fraudsters can either withdraw money, or steal your identity. Embedded HTML 'bugs' may offer your personal info to marketers, and could carry viruses. Although seasoned network administrators may have grown accustomed to the nuisance of unsolicited e-mail, or spam, these messages may soon pose severe security threats, thanks to emerging software geared to give e-marketers more access to personal data. Marketing companies have begun to embed invisible HTML "bugs" or "beacons" in their e-mail. Because these tiny one-pixel images must be retrieved from the sender's server when the message is opened, they can tell the sender when and how often a recipient looks at a message. HTML makes browsers launch, and the senders can place cookies on every PC that accepts the e-mail message with a bug. As a result, those cookies allow the sender to gather information such as the recipient's IP address, the type of browser they use, and the Web sites they visit. This is extremely dangerous, and computer users need to beware of the dangers of spam.
Supreme Court-Part 1 Facts of the case
Respondent companies distribute free software that allows computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks, so called because the computers communicate directly with each other, not through central servers. Although such networks can be used to share any type of digital file, recipients of respondents’ software have mostly used them to share copyrighted music and video files without authorization. Seeking damages and an injunction, a group of movie studios and other copyright holders (hereinafter MGM) sued respondents for their users’ copyright infringements, alleging that respondents knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act.
Discovery revealed that billions of files are shared across peer-to-peer networks each month. Respondents are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files, although the decentralized networks do not reveal which files are copied, and when. Respondents have sometimes learned about the infringement directly when users have e-mailed questions regarding copyrighted works, and respondents have replied with guidance. Respondents are not merely passive recipients of information about infringement. The record is replete with evidence that when they began to distribute their free software, each of them clearly voiced the objective that recipients use the software to download copyrighted works and took active steps to encourage infringement. After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitating copyright infringement, both respondents promoted and marketed themselves as Napster alternatives. They receive no revenue from users, but, instead, generate income by selling advertising space, then streaming the advertising to their users. As the number of users increases, advertising opportunities are worth more. There is no evidence that either respondent made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users’ downloads or otherwise to impede the sharing of copyrighted files.
Discovery revealed that billions of files are shared across peer-to-peer networks each month. Respondents are aware that users employ their software primarily to download copyrighted files, although the decentralized networks do not reveal which files are copied, and when. Respondents have sometimes learned about the infringement directly when users have e-mailed questions regarding copyrighted works, and respondents have replied with guidance. Respondents are not merely passive recipients of information about infringement. The record is replete with evidence that when they began to distribute their free software, each of them clearly voiced the objective that recipients use the software to download copyrighted works and took active steps to encourage infringement. After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitating copyright infringement, both respondents promoted and marketed themselves as Napster alternatives. They receive no revenue from users, but, instead, generate income by selling advertising space, then streaming the advertising to their users. As the number of users increases, advertising opportunities are worth more. There is no evidence that either respondent made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users’ downloads or otherwise to impede the sharing of copyrighted files.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)