Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Appeals court affirms Grokster decisionAppeals court affirms Grokster decisionPosted Aug 19, 2004 20:10 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: Appeals court affirms Grokster decision
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||