The Grokster case I linked to found Grokster liable for inducing infringement, not just providing users the opportunity to infringe. Producing a technology that is capable of substantial non-infringing uses (this is from the sony betamax case) can protect you from liability for infringing uses. But Grokster was found liable for Morpheus because they advertised infringement and otherwise induced infringement on their service.
So TPB would have been liable in the U.S. if they induced infringement even if their technology was capable of noninfringing use. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jameson Russell <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> I would like to draw attention to the fact that The Pirate Bay is >> called "The /Pirate/ Bay". It is pretty clear that its primary >> intention is to facilitate software piracy. Does it have incidental >> uses that are not for copyright infringement? Sure. But are we really >> arguing that a website with the word "pirate" in its name wasn't >> intending to aid people in piracy? >> > > And Free Culture means that no one ever pays for any of it, right? > > Nomenclature shouldn't be a distinguishing factor when evaluating what the > site actually did. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Alex Kozak [email protected] 916.225.2718
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
