Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
They didn't create the software. CNET just hosts it on their site for whatever fees they charge to the software companies. But as SCP stated from the video, CNET also had an MP3 search tool right on their page (I remember this search tool and used to use it) where you could do a right click and download the file right off the website. Again, I say, hypocrites.
|
Was the search tool, in the presented form in the video, was that tool still there after CBS actually bought CNET in 2008?
Anyway, while the vid had some interesting info, I really am not fond of video documentaries of any sort (whether I care about the agenda or not) since they hardly present enough info (and in a coherent manner) to see the whole picture. The are a stepping stone, but their thesis and logic to support said thesis, if that is their intent, is not to be taken without question.
Quite frankly, it's quite annoying to hear the guy say "hundreds of millions" without some sort of reference. He also seems to be using a colloquial form of vicarious liability to "expose" the hypocrisy of the top fat cats. While it indeed seems questionable that they twiddled their thumbs, they could have a legit they didn't know counterargument.
Besides, even without CNET, downloading p2p clients would still be possible since you could download from their official sites or mirrors/Bittorrent. That said, one could say that they could have used SOPA to shut down "enemy" sites to force users to go to CNET. It's one thing to have the law, it's another thing to go out and enforce it by filing for lawsuits.
But perhaps the fundemental flaw in his argument is that the software itself is quite legal and hence could not be taken down. You wonder why bittorent's creator hasn't had his hanging yet? Because one could say that he just made the software, but can't control users from doing legal or illegal acts.
Kazaa is an interesting and ironic case, since Kazaa LITE is an UNAUTHORIZED modification of Kazaa. Not only that,but Sherman Networks actually considered Kazaa Lite was a violation of copyright!!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Sharman Networks considers Kazaa Lite to be a copyright violation. On August 11, 2003, they sent a letter to Google requesting that all links to the Kazaa Lite application be removed from their database. During December 2003 Sharman emailed the owners of all sites hosting a copy of Kazaa Lite, threatening legal action if it was not removed. Because of this, the program was for a while difficult to find on the web, and development of it stopped. As of early 2007, the program is again widely available. It also remains available on the FastTrack network itself, where it can be downloaded with Kazaa or any other FastTrack client. There are rumours that new versions of KMD will prevent Kazaa Lite from connecting to the FastTrack network[who?]. In March 2005 Sharman Networks again sent a letter to Google requesting that all links to the Kazaa Lite application be removed from their database.
As owner of the Kazaa Intellectual property and copyright, Sharman eventually sued Kazaa Lite's developers and forced the shutdown of any mirror website containing the file.
|
Now, in the following hypothetical scenario, where:
1. SOPA is in effect
2. Kazaa Lite somehow gets hosted on CNET
Sharman could go through the SOPA process and then CNET will suffer the consequences of SOPA. For hosting a copyright infringing program, CNET could suffer a ton of collateral damage. And this scenario involves two pieces of software that irks SOPA supporters. Now even if you're in support of anti-piracy, does CNET deserve to be subjected to such collateral damage? It's tough to make such a case.