[H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
From The Washington Post: In http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400Souter'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
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
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/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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/W6RH04C5C0575D9BC6D7A3C8141400Souter'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]
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
Next time somebody kills their spouse with a hammer, the next of kin should sue Sears. On 7/5/05, j m g [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what it also doesn't do is give clarity to allowing the suits inthe first place.They've opened the door to folks to let the courtsdecide if there was any 'promotion of infringement' by the hardware orsoftware vendors. My Subaru's tv ad had 0-60 times as 5.4 secs - are they promotingreckless driving?Can they be sued for it?What someone does with tools they've purchased should be their ownresponsibility.A vague ruling like this will kill funding of projects that have market potential simply because of litigationfears.On 7/5/05, Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From The Washington Post: In http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH04C5C064AD9BC6D7A3C8141400Metro-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---jmgChaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]-- G. Waleed Kavalechttp://www.IslamAwakened.com/QuranAuozo Billah himinash shatan-ir-rajeem
Re: [H] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
They should just sue the internet for making it easy to pirate movies. I wish people would stop going to the movies and stop buying music in response to these stupid lawsuits. Ultimately, fair-use rights are going to be eliminated, and we'll all be forced to live in a safe, happy DRM land, where the thought police kill you if you press the record button when you're not allowed to. j m g 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.
Re: [H] Re: Can't find CD drives
if DM does not see them ( is there more than one ?) still may be a drive conflict or compatibility. jumpered properly or bios would not see them and controller must be enabled. were they seen at one time and nothing has changed ? I would enable view phantom devices in device manager and remove all grayed out devices. enabled in bios or with this reg file. show all devices must be enabled under view. REGEDIT4 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Environment] DEVMGR_SHOW_NONPRESENT_DEVICES=1 also could just be a bad drive, try another drive or if two one at a time. At 08:46 AM 7/5/2005, Chris Shaw Poked the stick with: These are good suggests!! I can see the drives in Device Manager, but can't see them in Drive Management. If I check the properties of them in Device Manager change a setting click OK, then the drive gets the yellow ! over it's icon. I hope this may shed some light on things. None of my apps can see them. I checked the bios they show up there as well as when it is booting up. So it appears to be some sort of Windows issue!! Thanks for the help!! -- Tallyho ! ]:8) -- Matrimony isn't a word, it's a sentence.
