|
|
Posted by Morton Davis on 09/26/05 14:44
"Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
news:yJOdnYcon_yI96reRVnyvw@giganews.com...
>
> <Kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
news:q5bej1dk0leto5gdg090g223gkgn6d2skb@4ax.com...
> > http://torrentspy.com/comments.asp?mode=view&id=3628&pg=5
> > >
> > The turmoil among file-sharing networks follows the landmark ruling by
> > the U.S. Supreme Court in June that held anyone who distributes a
> > device used to infringe copyright is liable for the resulting acts of
> > infringement by others.
> > >
> ============
>
> The Supreme Court didn't rule that Grokster et al are liable. Instead it
ruled that they
> MAY be liable and that the "Betamax Defense" isn't pertinent to this case.
The *are
> liable* would have to be litigated in the lower courts, which hasn't been
yet. Maybe the
> RIAA is certain of a victory there, but there has been no judgement that
developers *are*
> liable so far.
> The subpar legal representation that Grokster got before the Supreme Court
is responsible
> for the ruling, IMHO.
>
> Developers who least profit from their p2p software are the least likely
to have resources
> to mount a defense. Kind of ironic.
>
Yes, that the ACLU has not jumped in to argue for the developers. Perhaps if
they had been pornographers......
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|