Advertisement
International Conference for developers, artists and users of libre audio soft- and hardware: May 1-4 2010, Utrecht (NL)
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Appeals court affirms Grokster decision
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling (available in the usual PDF format) reaffirming the Grokster decision. This decision, remember, stated that Grokster was not liable for infringement of copyrights carried out by its users. "The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light
of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding
exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation
conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise.... The introduction of new technology is always disruptive
to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose
works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet,
history has shown that time and market forces often provide
equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a
player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal
computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent
for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability
theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses,
despite their apparent present magnitude."
(Log in to post comments)
Appeals court affirms Grokster decision Posted Aug 19, 2004 20:10 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Unfortunately, this decision will be of limited value if Orrin Hatch's INDUCE act is passed. The court seems to be saying that it's up to Congress to legislate in this area, so the courts would overstep their bounds if they jumped in and started banning technology. But they seem to be stating quite clearly that Congress has the power to legislate in this area.
Appeals court affirms Grokster decision Posted Aug 19, 2004 20:41 UTC (Thu) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] The nice thing is that it makes clear copyright should protect the artists, not the industry built around the artists and based on a specific distribution mechanism. A distribution mechanism that has lost most of its value due to new technologies.
Appeals court affirms Grokster decision Posted Aug 21, 2004 19:27 UTC (Sat) by drhhcox (guest, #4769) [Link] A lot of artists are "forced" to give up their copyright ownership as part of their contract to get the industry to assemble, promote, and distribute their works. So who really benifits? Just look for who's pushing the buttons.
Appeals court affirms Grokster decision Posted Aug 22, 2004 1:39 UTC (Sun) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link] True enough, but the important thing is for courts to continue to recognize that copyright exists to protect the rights of those for whom it is, by law, automatically established--the creators, not the distributors. That those rights must be bartered away for the creators to achieve certain other goals like certain kinds of success is a different part of the problem.
Supporting the EFF gives real results Posted Aug 20, 2004 1:40 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] As you can read in the linked PDF, the EFF was instrumental in this case, arguing on behalf of Streamcast.
Please ensure the EFF continues to get the funds it needs to fight bad law.
Nice to see... Posted Aug 20, 2004 22:22 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] that a federal judiciary has ruled, in effect, that the doctrine of mandatory contributory infringement is crap: that as long as there *is* a legal use for a tool, that you're not a criminal for producing that tool.
Clearly, pipe bomb manufacturers should be criminals, but software companies?
Nuh-uh.
Nice to see... Posted Aug 20, 2004 22:46 UTC (Fri) by kasheon (guest, #24158) [Link] The user of the tool, not the tool, commits the crime. Should we punish3M for making paper because a crazed lunatic slashes his office workers with his notebook?
|
|||||||||||