On 7/5/05, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits in
the first place. They've opened the door to folks to let the courts
decide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware or
software vendors.
My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promoting
reckless driving? Can they be sued for it?
What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their own
responsibility. A vague ruling like this will kill funding of
projects that have market potential simply because of litigation
fears.
On 7/5/05, Robert Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From The Washington Post:
>
> In
> <http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
> Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., the Court held that Grokster
> could be sued by MGM and other entertainment industry firms for its
> creation of a peer-to-peer file-sharing service. That's not because
> Grokster's software could be used for downloading movies and music, nor
> because Grokster's software was being used for that purpose, nor even
> because the Groksterites intended that use.
>
> The difference here, Justice David Souter wrote for a 9-0 majority, was
> that Grokster advertised itself as a way to get movies and music without
> paying. To quote
> <http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400 >Souter's
> opinion: "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use
> to infringe copyright, as shown by clear _expression_ or other affirmative
> steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of
> infringement by third parties."
>
> This is a somewhat fine distinction that seems to have gotten lost in some
> we're-all-gonna-die! analysis. The ruling does not throw people in jail for
> making hardware or software that could be used to share copyrighted works.
> It does not require the developers of hardware and software to act as
> copyright cops.
>
> The ruling makes this clear on page 19: "Mere knowledge of infringing
> potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject
> a distributor to liability," and in footnote 12 on page 22: "In the absence
> of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory
> infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps
> to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial
> noninfringing uses."
>
>
>
> Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
>
>
--
-jmg
Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]
--
G. Waleed Kavalec
http://www.IslamAwakened.com/Quran
----------------------------------------
Auozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem
