Posted by Don M. on 09/26/05 03:30

<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.


Don

[Back to original message]