pcorbilla productions

Dissent

2009-06-18T12:58:00.000-07:00

"While the Court unanimously concurred that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, there was considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony case, and whether the precedent established by Sony should be modified. On one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony." These justices concur in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.

Your own arguement

2009-06-18T05:09:00.000-07:00

My opinion goes both ways, only because I too am guilty of file sharing. I get my music now from ITunes and or other people’s iPods. So it’s cut down a lot based on not exactly knowing where or how my peers may have received their music. Knowing more about the music industry I would agree with the courts. I wouldn’t want any of my materials to be stolen either especially if my compensation was being hindered. As an artist I would completely understand by how much work you put into your materials, how much money you’ve invested, and how much time was put in as well. On the other hand I wouldn’t mind as much if my materials were being shared as an up and coming artist. I would want my music to travel into as many ears as possible and get recognition. That’s how artists grow and become popular. It’s a catch 22 but I think at the end it pays back. Artist wants their music to be heard and played as many times and however it can be. For example, artists are practically throwing their materials for FREE at DJ’s and radio stations to get as much play as possible. Whether it is a DJ to play at a club or to have them add it on their mix tapes which the DJ would profit or to have their song put in rotation from the radio station. Also as for us “users’ to me, economics comes into place. I don’t have the money to dump into all albums that I’d like to buy, and if I wanted to check out and listen to it first to decide whether or not I want to buy it then that’s an easy way to do so. By then I already have the album. I know this sounds bias but there are certain artists that I know ill like so ill go ahead and buy the album at the same time supporting. If a friend wanted that album as well, I’d easily burn it with no hesitation. It is a chunk of money that is being loss but comparing to the amount of money that they are still receiving from people that do buy, endorsements, merchandise, concerts, tours etc... I wouldn’t think that it’s that big of a deal only for the simple fact that it’s not going to stop and there isn’t anything that you can do about it. It’s almost looked at as free advertising because your music is going around.

“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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_Court.27s_decision

Ruling of the law

2009-06-18T04:16:00.001-07:00

The precedent of this case unlike the Sony case rules that whoever creates or designs a program or software that enables you to “P2P file-share” other people’s copyrighted makings is illegal by not only the the user but by the creator of the software as well, which is considered stealing. All software that induces file sharing must say that if used to download illegal material is prohibited and that lawful actions will be taking place.

Reasoning of the court

2009-06-18T02:44:00.000-07:00

The Supreme court decided that file sharing and creating a software that enables you to do so is not illegal. Although, if your software allows you to do so then you must issue out a warning stating that downloading music and motion pictures is in fact illegal and can and will be prosecuted. Even though Grokster tried to hide behind the ruling of the Sony case which protected VCR manufacturers from liability for copyright infringement , the courts still sought out Grokster for meeting those violations due to the simple fact that Groksters software did not issue any copyright warning or any illegal use of the software that enables file sharing.

“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.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_Court.27s_decision

Decision of the court

2009-06-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

Over all the deciding factor and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court concluded defendant Grokster and Streamcast was found guilty for inducing a software that promotes and violates copyright infringement laws. Grokster no longer offers its per-2-peer file sharing service. "The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners." Is now stated on the website when visited. Grokster is now forced to pay $50 million dollars to the music and recording industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_Court.27s_decision

"While the Court unanimously concurred that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, there was considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony case, and whether the precedent established by Sony should be modified. On one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony." These justices concur in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally.

Roughly speaking, the Ginsburg concurrence suggests that Grokster would be liable (unprotected by Sony) even absent evidence of inducement. The Breyer concurrence, on the other hand, suggests that Grokster would be protected by Sony without evidence of inducement. The Souter opinion does not address whether or not Sony protects Grokster. Thus, neither the view that Grokster is protected nor the view that Grokster is unprotected by Sony commanded a plurality of the Court."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.#The_Court.27s_decision

"Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services. "

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2004/mgmvgro.html

Issue of the case

2009-06-17T21:56:00.000-07:00

"This case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation"

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/grokster

This case is considered similar and categorized in the same issues in the Sony Corp. vs. Universal City Studios back in 1984. That case as well also protected VCR manufacturers from liability for contributory infringement. The issue here is whether or not Grokster’s creation is illegal due to copyrighting infringement. Case ended in June of 2005 with the Supreme Court issuing its ruling in MGM vs. Grokster. Ruling that the providers of the software that designed to allow “file-sharing” of copyrighted items may be held liable for the copyright infringement that takes place using that software. The case resulted in a crucial U.S. Supreme Court ruling, ruling that two file-sharing software manufacturers were found guilty of promoting file piracy. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled that file sharing itself is not illegal. So while the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are claiming this is a massive win for the entertainment industry, it really is a massive win for the world of P2P file sharing.

"In a case spanning several months, the US entertainment industry (in the form of MGM movies, and backed by the MPAA and RIAA) claimed that Grokster.com and StreamCast.com were liable for copyright damages because they encouraged the illegal sharing of movies. These two manufacturers were actively marketing software products that assisted in the downloading of pirated movies and songs"

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/p2plegalitiesandethics/a/grokster.htm

"In their defense, Grokster and StreamCast claimed the Supreme Court 1984 "Betamax" defense. This Betamax ruling asserts that a VCR manufacturer is not responsible for a VCR user copying movies illegally."

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/p2plegalitiesandethics/a/grokster.htm

The district court disagreed with MGM, granting partial summary judgment in favor of Grokster as to liability arising from its present distribution activities. MGM appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2004/mgmvgro.html

Facts of the case

2009-06-10T23:53:00.000-07:00

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC., et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.

GROKSTER, LTD., et al.,
Respondents.

Supreme Court Rules in MGM v. Grokster

It's been nicknamed the "Grokster Case", and it has been a major battle in the world of file sharing. The case started back on October of 2001 when Streamcast Networks, which were the developers of Grokster was targeted in a law suit that the company illegally profits off the creation and promotion of software used mainly to allow copyright infringement. This case has worked its way up to the Supreme Courts. Throughout the years at trial the Supreme Court has overruled the lower courts that consistently ended in the favor of Grokster which gave a very small negative impact when it came to P2P “peer 2 peer” file sharing. Mgm Studios,Inc. vs Grokster case was decided in the United States Supreme Court which the court unanimously held the defendant of P2P file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for copyrighting and infringement.

greed is good

2009-05-14T16:41:00.001-07:00

GREED IS GOOD

Wall Street is one huge casino market for the whole world to have access to gamble. When it comes to gambling, there are many different styles and attitudes when it comes to playing hands and money. In this case it would be dealing with your business, stocks, where, how, and when you place your money. For most people, “money talks” and greed does over power. Unfortunately they don’t think about other people and how it may affect them. They become selfish and they’ll do whatever and however it takes to get what they want and to the top no matter how or who they step on. To keep it real, that’s how and where corruption gets developed and spreads quite rapidly. On the other hand you have the people that have morals and have a conscious and they play it safe to where they don’t harm themselves. This situation will never end. It only gets worse from here. There are so many people out there that will do anything for a buck.
For example, and lets just say that his intentions were good and trying to help by coming up with a solution to help people get approved by coming up with the R.E.I.T. solution. That’s just giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now I’m sure by him creating the reit act he was well aware of the cause and effect outcome that would occur later on down the road. But all he can see was $$ signs on what he can do and get with what he created. Then greed gets involved and he gets paid a bonus worth 300 billion dollars. While the majority of Las Vegas is suffering in depression and a lot of homes are being lost and taken away because the home owners who couldn’t afford their homes before cant afford their homes now. Which creates debt for not just them but for banks and the rest going down the line.

"Bong hits for Jesus"

2009-05-07T16:32:00.000-07:00

“Bong Hits for Jesus”

My opinion about this matter can go either way. I think this issue is more on the moral point of view rather than the lawful side of it. So we can go either way with this. Morally speaking I agree with the school/teachers side of the issue. Here we are trying to keep kids safe. Teach them what is right and wrong, good and bad by having events, programs, guest speakers etc… trying to develop a safe, drug free, violent free environment for the young generation. So of course having those actions going on across the street and promoting any kind of drug content however taken or perceived will hinder all purpose of the schools intentions.
Now on the other hand, there is the law for a reason, and that purpose is for the rights of the people. In this situation this is where and when the First Amendment comes to place. We do have the right, the right of “freedom of speech”. So therefore we are legally allowed to do such protests. If it goes to these measures then “technically” there is nothing we can do since the student is protected by the law.
That’s why we can go back and forth with these circumstances and that I feel that it’s a catch 22 for the most part.

used cars crimes and torts

2009-04-30T15:50:00.000-07:00

Crimes
1. Destruction of Property.
2. bribery
3. Lieing under Oath
4. Under age driving
5. Unlicensed driving
6. No insurance
7. Speeding
8. Destruction of Public Property
9. Domestic Violence
10. Endangerment of Minors
11. Armed Assault
12. Possession of Concealed Weapon
13. Forgery
14. J-Walking
15. Drug abuse
16. Drug possession
17. Sexual Harrassment
18. Lack of License Plate
19. Fleeing the scene
20. Drinking on the Job
21. Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road
22. Wreckless Driving
23. Gambling
24. Attempted Murder

Torts
1. False Advertisement
2. Disreputation
3. Indescency
4. Slander

what i think about lawyers

2009-04-24T22:59:00.001-07:00

What I think of lawyers

Well just as our society is, there are people (lawyers) that have good decent morals and then there are the crooked grimy ones that are only out for themselves and will do everything and anything to get to the top. Money, “the root of all evil” is what fuels the crooked grimy ones and leads to them being caught up in the “Hollywood” lifestyle. Then there are the lawyers that actually care and respect themselves, others, and their line of work.
But regardless I do have to be thankful for them and what they do. They do help bring justice in many good ways. I admire their work and dedication that they put in to make sure justice is served. But it’s sad to say, when money, power, and fame gets involved then all morals, good intentions, and true caring gets thrown out the window. Politics begin to create and build as well. When you gather all of these aspects then there is no winning against it. It’s all about who you know and what strings they can pull for you or if they can just turn their head in certain circumstances. That’s why these famous big time lawyers who are at the top and which takes top dollar to have them represent you are where they’re at in status. They have the money to pay off the right people or have connections to get things done in their favor.
It’s just unfair how money can rule everything and take over. Justice isn’t served that way and it only makes our government that much more corrupted than it is already. It’s pretty sickening but at the same time, what can we do about it…. Absolutely nothing! Us citizens don’t have the money nor the power to back us up if we were to stand up against them and they have the power and money to hurt us in many ways just by trying to get in their way.