Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis
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!!!
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.
|
I don't know if the MP3 search was there in 2008, I'm probably going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't. Yeah, the guy in the video kind of reminded me of somebody who had a little too much coffee in the morning, and I'm sure some of his points in the video are probably a bit suspect, but he does raise some interesting points I thought. Just like you said, the software itself is not illegal. It's just like those politicians trying to ban the use of firearms - those guns aren't illegal in themselves (well unless you own fully automatic weapons) it's the purpose in which you use them. Same for the software. From what I remember, it seemed like some of those file sharing programs were only hosted on CNET. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember going to that software's website and going to the download page, and often times the download page was actually CNET's download page.
But I think the main point I'm trying to drive home is simply that, one, CNET obviously looked like a very profitable investment for CBS to purchase, two, CNET was profitable because they made money off of hosting/advertising all types of software, peer to peer software included. And finally, it just looks bad to me when you're getting money from these companies and then want to turn them over to the authorities for piracy. Even when the piracy issue first came up with Napster, CNET still kept hosting other file sharing programs that did the same thing that Napster did (Morpheus, Kaaza, Winmx, etc..) You would just assume if they were really against piracy (which again is head scratcher considering they had their own MP3 search and download tool on their site) they would have removed all of those file sharing programs at once. But no, obviously there was some sort of profit to be made by keeping them on their servers and they did so for awhile.
Speaking of, I just went to CNET and they still have file sharing software that can be downloaded from their site, so again, I just find them to be big hypocrites. Check it out for yourselves:
CNET File Sharing Software