« Spam & Spyware: Solving Carpal Tunnel | Main | NSA + RSA = News »

February 11, 2005



I personally think the lower court was correct ruling in favor of Grokster, and I hope the supreme court upholds this ruling. I feel that the Sony Standard, as well as other precendents like Vault, Sega, Connectix, Lexmark, Skylink, and others have set useful balance between copyright, content, and freedom of innovation of new technologies.

Additionally, I beleive that peer to peer technology has done a lot of good for music distribution. It has enabled music fans for the first time to build a song library of just the songs they choose without having to pay for a lot of songs they do not want. The next thing it is done is exposed consumers to music on their computers, the freedom to make "custom mixed" CDs, and made content access easier and more open than ever before.

However, I beleive that something needs to be done to get the artists and songwriters paid for P2P, without criminalizing users who have accepted this technology. I personally like some of the ideas that EFF, Neil Weinstock Nathael, Ian Clarke, and many others have suggested that involve new kinds of licensing.

I also oppose Hollywood's Campaign to restrict innovation, and embed copy protection in every device. This kind of tech policy will curtail innovation, and try to turn computers into "content vending machines" that charge for every use, and don't allow just anyone to create new content or create new devices for.


I beleive that peer to peer technology has done a lot of good for music distribution. It has enabled music fans for the first time to build a song library of just the songs they choose without having to pay for a lot of songs they do not want.

Cheap fashion

I have never read such a wonderful article and I am coming back tomorrow to continue reading.

brand name handbags

These information helps me consider some useful things, keep up the good work.

Cheap sale jordan

It is my pleasure to read this page,I look forward to reading more.

china wholesale

Hi, the article is so wonderful, I am interested in it. I will pay attention to your articles.

nike TN



We need to strike while the iron is hot! With this laestt corporate personhood Supreme Court decision in the public arena, and with many in Congress speaking out against the decision , we should immediately campaign for a federal law to declare that corporations are not persons and have no claim to obtain human rights under the U. S. Constitution. Now is the time. The President and many members of both parties in congress have spoken against it. Lets ask all our members to send a letter to the President NOW before the state of union address if possible and ask him to support a bill merely to state the obvious, that a corporation is not a person entitled to Human Rights under the U. S. Constitution. At least that will be a start. If a Constitutional amendment is needed it can be done in time, but lets try this [a bill or executive order] for a start! I have been fighting corporate personhood for over 4 years and got it in the Maine Democratic platform, where there was absolutely no opposition to it. The people when they find out about it tend to be outraged that you need to define the English language in law to get your rights. It passed unanimously in the Maine Democratic Convention in 2004 and some Maine towns have passed ordinances as well. Everyone understands the issue fairly easily. Here is what I sent to the President via whitehouse.org, and my 2 senators and my congress woman, all 3 of whom have made public statements against this laestt court decision. I request that you send a letter or petition on overturning this to your membership. Also lets partner with other groups and get them to start letter writing to their members to contact their congress reps and the president. We need to strike while the iron is hot!Unlike the way it was reported, the [Citizen United]] Supreme Court decision, which allows unlimited corporate political donations, is not just one free speech case, but one of a long train of decisions that allow corporations to escape nearly any government regulation under the century old false court doctrine that corporations are entitled to human constitutional rights because corporations are people [the so-called "corporate personhood" doctrine]. This case is being reported [by news corporations] as though it is an isolated incident, but it has been happening for a century. The personhood doctrine is far more damaging than just freedom of speech. If corporations are human, they are not only entitled to freedom of speech, but freedom from search and seizure, freedom of assembly, equal protection under the law and other human rights. The 22nd amendment, allowing equal protection under the law, was created for southern blacks to free them from Jim Crow justice in the south. After the corporate personhood doctrine it has been used over 200 times by corporations under this false corporate personhood doctrine and less than 10 times by real living human beings according to the book Unequal Protection by Thom Hartman. The original case, which hundreds of succeeding decisions used as a precedent, was never actually decided by the court, according to Hartman, but only in a footnote. Some have stated that the footnote itself was added by a clerk and was never actually part of the 1886 decision Santa Clara railroad decision. [Court records being poorly kept at that time.]Legislation supposedly trumps court precedent. Courts are supposed to consider the intent of the Congress when deciding a case. This is one of a series of cases where the court is legislating from the bench.A law passed by Congress stating that corporations are not persons entitled to human rights under the Constitution would extinguish the use of this false precedent again in the future. According to their statements the President and all 4 members of the Maine congressional delegation oppose this decision. I suggest one of them sponsor a bill that would state that no corporation is a person or can be considered to be a person for purposes of obtaining human rights under the United States constitution. This could be used in court to refute future the corporation argument that human rights are being violated by whatever law is being challenged.A Presidential executive order stating that corporations are not people may even be enough to prevent another use of this false doctrine by the Supreme Court.If the government acts on this matter alone it would have made the greatest contribution to human justice since women were given the right to vote.As a friend once said, If a corporation is a person, then a monkey is a hippopotamus.


I am aghast. It is bad engouh that we were FORCED to buy new TVs and converter boxes expensive ones at that, when our old TVs and VCRs worked just fine only to be stuck with the situation with the demise of decent television programming a la reality show. Any decent shows, even re-runs are off the air. Too much infomercials during prime time weekends, even! And all you get is The Office 5 days a week on NBC plus also on syndicators. No escape from the trash. The HD Conversion was a joke, a lie perpetrated on Americans. I want the status quo back. I have an expensive TV with little to watch on it. I do not want to pay $50 $100 to cable for more crap. Leave my TV alone. Better yet, Rescind licenses for stations not educating and informing the public with decent programming. Step up to the plate FCC!The only good thing is that I can watch shows I miss on Internet and avoid another expensive piece of equipment that doesn't work as well as my old VHS did. Also, do you notice how poor the picture cropping is on HD TVs? We got duped BIG TIME.


The TELCOS and Media Giants forget that the awyiars are OWNED BY WE THE PEOPLE!!! They exist TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. The TELCOS and Media Giants are always seeking to diminish the Public's control and to further GOUGE the Public financially. It is time that WE THE PEOPLE stand up and assert our ownership and rights to ALL the Public Airways. It is LONG PAST TIME for WE THE PEOPLE to harness and restrict the TELCOS and Media Giants!!!


Has anyone read SOPA? It is an extermely dangerous act that threatens free speech and expression. It runs against so many messages of independence and pro-art in Hollywood films and American-made TV productions. The paradigm of information sharing and entertainment consumerism has shifted in the last 10 years. Rather than embrace the fact that more people globally are watching their product than ever before, and then discussing it via images and clips on social websites, Hollywood is using all of its power and money the 1% ahem to dictate and patrol the web. Like the even scarier, Orwellian National Defense Act, SOPA strikes first and asks questions later, if ever. That's not hyperbole. Do some research. Theoretically, a Hollywood studio, a big producer, etc can flag a hundred websites that are felt to violate copyright and those sites will be removed. Gone. Zapped. Blacklisted. SOPA targets not only shady sites that distribute copyrighted movies through torrents. It threatens sites like Tumblr, YouTube competitors, fan made videos, fan sites, you name it. The act is akin to destroying the marshland of the web, where ideas and new life are given to forms of old media by the minute. It threatens to turn the web, with Facebook's colluded, privacy-mining assistance, into a digital Time Square. The web is often not pretty or polite, agreed. Such is life. The pro-SOPA commercial that is circulating, that's funded by Hollywood dollars, is a joke. Let's guilt and further bribe U.S. politicians by decrying the loss of jobs created by piracy and the web. There is no hard, objective data to support this. At all. Hollywood has taken a hit due to video games, due to breakthroughs in interactivity. Due to its inability to experiment with the form, and its bloated product, like comedies that run over two hours that rely on crude humor. On Transformers 4, 5, and 6. Oh, and due to the crappiest sequel it didn't make, the Great Depression 2: Jobless Millenials. Americans are struggling. There is little time for them to really look into SOPA and the National Defense Act. And channels like CNN and Fox News certainly aren't doing a thing to inform them. Wonder why. Speak up against these cretins. The 1% is going down. Their desperate measures are just that.


Google and other Internet companies know that a large part of the Web's puprlaoity is due to the free and illegal availability of copyrighted content. But that's only part of the reason that they're fighting this. As owner of YouTube, Google has a vested interest in driving down the asset value of traditional media companies. It makes the purchase of media content cheaper, it maintains their dominant position as the world's video portal, and it keeps the traditional media companies in fear and weakness. There will come a time when YouTube has established itself as an entertainment encumbent. At that point Google will suddenly find it has the ability to prevent the identification, distribution and viewing of copyrighted material and will heartily endorse this kind of Federal measure. The problem is timing; strategically Google is not quite where it wants to be just yet, and this kind of legal protection will give the traditional media corporations protection that could disadvantage Google. Taking greedy corporate self interest out of the equation for a moment; would the technology companies like their patents protected in a narrow way that would curb private lawsuits? Of course they wouldn't. They are being disingenuous in trying to deny the same kind of protections to others that they regularly enforce themselves. Media and entertainment, like all other intellectual property, has economic value. Media companies big and small should have the opportunity to go after US technology companies if it can be shown that they are facilitating the theft or unauthorized use of copyrighted material.


While Murdoch is in court having his day, maybe we shuold ask him and all of the studios to open up their balance book and see what it is they are truly protecting! The internet gives the writer producer all the power. Some may say that if content is king then Google could be King Kong. But the winner will always be the creator. Does this bill protect the creator. No. It doesn't. The internet is the truest form of democracy we now have. Just take a look at the Arab Spring. This has nothing to do with copyright yes it does. Of course it does. The internet doesn't belong to anyone one. It belongs to us all. Do you honestly think Murdoch gives a crap about democracy. He would destroy all unions if he was given half the chance. Take a look at the UK. Take a look at what that man's policies did to a young girl who was brutally murdered by a serial killer. Now we are to believe that his bill has the creators best interests at heart. COME ON!! Wake up. This bill is not about protecting the creators of content it's about protecting the wallet of those that have had the power to abuse the writers, producers, actors and musicians for way to long. If 100.million people illegally download a piece of content. Music.Film. TV. That's 100 million eyeballs.This bill will fail even if it passes. The internet is here. For good. For bad. It's here. The old archaic ways of monopolized networks and studios is over.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Caveat

  • The opinions on postings are of individual 463 Communications partners and employees. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of 463 Communications, the firm, or our clients. Comments will remain posted at the sole discretion of 463.

463's Web Home

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

463 Communications

  • 463 is a communications consultancy based in Washington, DC and San Francisco that works with top technology companies and organizations.

463 on Twitter...

    follow me on Twitter