Posted by PTravel on 11/02/06 23:55

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:4qv655Fot63jU1@individual.net...
> "PTravel" wrote ...
>> This judgment has not been overruled. As far as I know, there are no 9th
>> Circuit appellate opinions addressing this (though I may be wrong).
>> Circuit Courts of Appeal opinions are controlling in their own circuits.
>> This is a district court opinion, so it is not controlling anywhere, but
>> would be considered extremely persuasive, particularly since it
>> originates from the Central District, which, along with the Northen
>> District of California, are considered "leading" districts for
>> intellectual property law. I haven't read the opinion, but I'm very
>> familiar with Judge Wilson, and have litigated before him previously.
>> He's not sloppy and he's very smart. This is a significant holding and,
>> contrary to your contention, is valid law.
>
> Does this ruling apply to the tool itself, or to how people USE the tool?

I haven't read the opinion, but I suspect only to the tool itself, i.e. if
you use it to exchange files in violation of copyright, you have infringed.
Of course, as with any instance of unauthorized copyring, fair use defenses,
if available, would apply.

> Even lock picks have a legitimate use if you are a locksmith, etc. And
> fast cars aren't illegal just because bank robbers use them to get away
> from the crime-scent/authorities, or even because some people break
> the speed limit in them.
>
> Does this actually change the concept of "fair use" or the intent of the
> copyright laws?

As I said, I haven't read the opinion. However, I cannot imagine it
extending fair use to the kind of conduct that has been held infringing,
e.g. downloading music, etc.

>
>

[Back to original message]