Brandon <blanu at uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes: > > This is pseudo-lawyering, which is dangerous. As has been demonstrated > > with Napster (who didn't filter anything), whether you currently filter > > something or not, if it is on the WWW, you can be shut down. > > This is U.S. legal precedent. Napster was shut down because it was deemed > a technology specifically designed for copyright infringement without > substantial non-infringing uses.
This is not true. Napster was shown to have substantial non-infringing uses, but the court decided that the betamax defense applied only in cases where the offender was not aware of and able to stop an actual infringement, or something like that. What Ian says is also probably incorrect. He's right however that
