| |||||||||||||
Not Like BetamaxNot Like BetamaxPosted Jul 4, 2005 0:00 UTC (Mon) by miallen (guest, #10195)Parent article: The Grokster ruling
I grew up in the 80's at the hight of VCR and audio cassette usage and I don't recall any widescale bootlegging. Maybe a little with audio cassettes but VCRs and dual cassette decks were used 99% for legitimate purposes. Grokster OTOH is 99.999% illegitimate. Bittorrent is used significantly for legitimate purposes and no one's directly profiting from it.
So I'm not terribly surprised by this ruling but this is NOT like the Betamax issue. If bittorrent has legitimate uses it will be much more difficult for copyright groups to litigate (assuming they can even find someone worth litigating against).
(Log in to post comments)
Not Like Betamax Posted Jul 7, 2005 20:15 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > no one's directly profiting from itRed Hat and other distro makers profit from it, because it reduces their bandwidth usage. Furthermore, why should whether or not someone profits from it have any effect on whether it is legal or not?
|
|||||||||||||