Mike McCarty wrote:
Interesting. Google found http://www.grokster.com/ which claims that it logged my IP address simply for visiting the site. I wonder what the phrase "unauthorized peer-to-peer services" means?
That's "RIAA-speak." Not entirely accurate, unsurprisingly. It's not the service that's unauthorized, it's the manner in which the majority of users used the service that's unauthorized.
Anyway, I read what the EFF has to say, and it's odd what the Supreme Court ruled. I see the same argument used repeatedly now, and it doesn't make sense to me in any of the circumstances I've seen it. For example, recently we've seen cases where people successfully sue bars for "letting them get drunk", and even individuals. I'd never supply alcohol for someone who visited my house because of that. I've also seen lawsuits against gun manufacturers because someone misused a gun. When do we get lawsuits against hammer manufacturers?
I don't think it's the same argument at all. SCOTUS held that a service like Grokster *could* be liable for contributory infringement, it did not say that Grokster was liable. That would have been a matter for a lower court to decide, had Grokster not thrown in the towel. SCOTUS held this in the face of Grokster's claim that it could not be held liable. That would be like a bar claiming that under no circumstances could a bar ever be held liable for getting a patron drunk. To my knowledge, no bar has ever made that claim, and I wouldn't expect any bar to try. Clearly, there are circumstances in which a bar could be liable -- for instance, you order a Virgin Mary and the bartender serves you a Bloody Mary instead. If you're an alcoholic, that's likely a one-way ticket to a bender. (Of course, if you're an alcoholic, it's probably not wise to go to a bar in the first place. But there are numerous occasions where people who can't/shouldn't drink need to be around people who are drinking.) Grokster was trying to say that it was not responsible for what its users shared; SCOTUS said it might be, if it encouraged unauthorized sharing of copyrighted files. If you started "Mike McCarty's P2P Network" and put up a website claiming people who used your network could get all the latest Top 40 hits and Top 10 tv shows and movies and games for free, you likely would be found guilty of contributory infringement even if you weren't hosting the files on your servers. To me, that makes sense. If, on the other hand, you started a network or service akin to Bittorrent and wanted it to be used for distribution of Linux ISOs and explicitly warned people not to share unauthorized files, then you wouldn't be guilty of contributory infringement even if people used your network for sharing unauthorized files. To me, that also makes sense.
In a nutshell, the Grokster ruling was SCOTUS's attempt to revoke any P2P network's "get out of jail free" card. It was not an explicit condemnation of P2P in general.
Back to the original question that started this wayward thread, can't you access this list on USENET? Here is Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.user?lnk=gschgIsn't that this list? I subscribe through email, so I haven't tried, but I was under the impression that you could both post to and read this and all (or most) Debian lists through USENET. Others in this thread seem to be saying that it is only an email list.
-- Michael