Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (61336)	3/28/2005 11:32:32 AM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 74559

Grokster case may have large impact beyond P-to-P Some tech trade groups say future innovation is at stake MARCH 25, 2005 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - When the entertainment industry faces off against two peer-to-peer software vendors in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, nothing less than the future of technological innovation is at stake, according to some technology trade groups. Lawyers for the plaintiffs -- the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Music Publisher's Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America -- say they're simply trying to get the court to recognize that the Grokster and Morpheus peer-to-peer software packages were created primarily to encourage users to illegally trade copyrighted songs and movies. They argue that while users are responsible for copyright violations, peer-to-peer vendors share a secondary liability. The issue before the Supreme Court in the MGM vs. Grokster case focuses on a relatively narrow question: whether movie and music companies should be able to sue the peer-to-peer distributors for the copyright violations of their users. Critics of the entertainment industry's position, including some technology trade groups, said the case has much broader implications: If copyright owners are able to sue inventors of new technologies for the sins of their users, few tech companies would be safe. "Demanding that innovators guess how people use a new technology, and holding them liable retroactively if they fail to anticipate what users will do ... is a radical new definition of secondary liability that will chill innovation," said Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer rights advocacy group. "The tyranny of copyright risk and the liability it will bring will make innovators timid in inventing new communications technologies." If the Supreme Court allows entertainment companies to sue peer-to-peer vendors, it will overturn its own 21-year-old ruling that has balanced the rights of copyright owners with those of the creators of innovative new technologies such as the VCR, the copying machine and the MP3 player, said critics of the entertainment industry's position. "This case is not just about peer-to-peer; it's fundamentally about trying to change the rules for all of the technology industry," said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and lawyer for Morpheus distributor StreamCast Networks Inc. in this case. The case centers on the Supreme Court's 1984 Sony Betamax ruling, in which judges rejected claims that a movie studio brought against Sony Corp., maker of the Betamax VCR. The court ruled against Universal City Studios, saying that makers of technologies with significant uses other than infringing copyrights weren't liable for their users' copyright violations. The entertainment industry has lost its previous attempts to sue Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the 1984 Betamax decision, ruled in August that the peer-to-peer vendors weren't liable for their users' copyright violations. Lawyers for the entertainment industry say they're not trying to overturn the Betamax decision, but want the court to recognize that the Grokster and Morpheus software is designed specifically to allow users to steal music and movies. Many peer-to-peer vendors have designed software that doesn't track the files users are trading and refuse to make changes that would filter out copyright files, said Charles Ortner, a lawyer representing the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences Inc. "Grokster designed this system to attract a large audience to get free music that they otherwise would have to pay for," said Ortner, who filed a brief in the case supporting the plaintiffs. "They have deliberately avoided any kind of screening mechanism." The 9th Circuit Court failed to recognize the "pervasive" copyright violations through Grokster and Morpheus, instead suggesting that minor legal uses of the peer-to-peer software constituted a "substantial noninfringing use" as described in the Betamax decision, Ortner said. "It's cynical for them to say the principles of Betamax apply in this case." But 17 computer science professors and tech trade groups, including the Information Technology Association of America and NetCoalition, have questioned the tactics of the entertainment industry. The NetCoalition group asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Betamax standard in a neutral brief filed in the case in January, suggesting that the court send the case back to lower courts to measure the liability of peer-to-peer vendors using different standards. If a peer-to-peer vendor promises users they can download all the latest hit songs for free, the entertainment industry can sue on those claims without determining the noninfringing use of a technology, said Markham Erickson, general counsel for NetCoalition, a trade group representing Internet companies such as Yahoo Inc. and Google Inc. The court shouldn't punish the peer-to-peer technology itself, which has many legitimate uses. In many ways, the Internet itself is a peer-to-peer medium, he said. If the entertainment industry gets its way, e-mail service providers could conceivably be required to monitor their customers' sent e-mail for copyright materials, or a photo storage Web site like Snapfish.com could be required to check its customers uploaded files for copyright content, Erickson said. New rules supported by the entertainment industry would affect the "entire Internet and most of the technology industry." "Venture capital would dry up for cool [technologies] that people can do illegal things with," Erickson said. "It would require technology companies to consult with lawyers for the entertainment industry at the development stage. It's just an impossible solution." computerworld.com

To: RealMuLan who wrote (61336)	3/30/2005 7:16:54 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

US prepares classified watch-list of 25 unstable countries By Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: March 29 2005 03:00 \| Last updated: March 29 2005 03:00 The US intelligence community is drawing up a secret watch-list of 25 countries where instability might precipitate US intervention, according to officials in charge of a new office set up to co-ordinate planning for nation-building and conflict prevention. The list will be drawn up and revised every six months by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which synthesises intelligence for strategic planning, according to Carlos Pascual, head of the newly formed office of reconstruction and stabilisation. Conceived out of the acknowledged failure of postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq, the new State Department office amounts to recognition by the Bush administration that it needs to get better at nation-building - a concept it once scorned as social work disguised as foreign policy. But its small budget - $17m (€13m, £9m) requested from Congress this year and $124m in fiscal 2006 - reflects a lack of commitment, according to advisers. They say the administration remains deeply divided about the merits of nation-building and the international institutions that do it. Mr Pascual told a two-day conference last week on Reconstructing and Stabilising War-Torn States, organised by the independent US Institute of Peace, that the NIC would identify countries of "greatest instability and risk", to clarify priorities and allocate resources. The watch-list was classified, according to a spokesperson. However, another official gave the example of conflict-torn Nepal, saying it was the subject of a special study on fragile states by USAID, the government aid agency. USAID declined to comment. Although Mr Pascual, a former ambassador, will act as the lead co-ordinator between civilian agencies and the Pentagon, officials stressed creation of the new office did not mean the US was bent on nation-building through military action. While internal arguments still rage about how to deal with Iran, for example, senior members of the administration would prefer to see regime change brought about by opposition groups rather than by direct US military intervention, according to advisers who spoke privately. Mr Pascual said conflict prevention and postwar reconstruction of failed and failing states had become a "mainstream foreign policy challenge" because of the dangers of terrorist groups and the availability of weapons of mass destruction. His goals were to prevent conflict, but also to prepare to react quickly when the US military had to intervene. Post-conflict work would focus on creating laws and institutions of a "market democracy", he said. Planning would include forming a "reserve corps" of specialist civilian teams and devising reconstruction contracts in advance with private companies and NGOs. James Dobbins, former special US envoy to Afghanistan, welcomed the new office, saying the administration was beginning to learn from its failures. Nicholas Burns, the newly appointed under-secretary of state for political affairs, played down the military aspect and linked the new office with the "transformational diplomacy" advocated by Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state. news.ft.com