Grokster Loses, P2P F**ked

3 comments
Source Title:
The Supremes Rule Against Grokster
Story Text:

The RIAA must be wetting their pants with excitement over the decision in their favor in the Grokster case. "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses."

Jupiter's Joseph Laszlo has a nice walkthrough of the 24 page decision. Amusingly, BoingBoing report that the decision is available on BitTorrent...

Comments

"inducing" your users to

"inducing" your users to infringe by failing to employ restrictions that you believe will reduce copyright infringement.

how does that work with Google and other engines that make stolen content available, or fund the business models of said sites with AdSense?

Hooray for the RIAA! Now

Hooray for the RIAA! Now they can sue more children and pensioners!!

We hold that 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.

if one replaces the word device with 'weapon' and the references to infringement with 'death', or 'killing', or 'murder', we can see just how stupid a ruling it is, in what is clearly another knee-jerk reaction to something they still fail to understand. If I give someone a hammer and they go forth and destroy things -- people or otherwise -- neither myself nor the hammer manufacturer are likely to entertain the idea that it was our fault.

At some point in the future, proxies and encryption will come under heavy fire for fostering infringement through anonymity as part of whatever tool supercedes Bittorrent et al.

Free will; its a funny old game.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.