On 7/28/05, Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is Contributory Infringement, which > > carries a full array of jail terms. SCOTUS just upheld it against > > Grokster a few weeks ago. Providing an automated system for users to > > perform infringing acts, with the sole intent of aiding them in > > performing those acts, is the same as doing them yourself. > > But that doesn't apply in the case of automatic systems for users to do the > link. The GPL allows users to do what they want privately, so the users > aren't performing infringing acts themselves.
While Andrew's parallel to Grokster is IMHO inapposite, he is correct that a theory of contributory infringement (also available in other countries under the name "vicarious liability") allows recovery from a party whose role is to facilitate and encourage infringement by others. The availability of some sort of personal-use "safe harbor" (as in European patent law, for instance; see thread on XMMS and MP3) does not necessarily protect a commercial entity whose product or service does not have (or is not actually marketed for the sake of) substantial non-infringing uses. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
