Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
ok let try this again
because you seem to ignore the fact that first ammendment and copyright still protect information that could be use to commit illegal acts like making bombs, cooking up meth, hacking networks etc.
So arguing that you have to eliminate it because it could be used to commit an illegal act would only be valid if the same was true for all information that could be used to commit illegal acts.
So again why do you have a right to violate their first ammendment rights and copyright
|
you bring the first amendment into it??? the right to free speech? What the hell does that have to do with it.
I am talking about distribution. I could spell it slower if you like.
Section 106.... I as a copyright holder retain distribution rights.
Section 107.... fair use, they are laid out what you can do... everything else is a violation.... recovery is not one of the mentioned uses. Distribution is not allowed.
Betamax was reviewed in Grokster, which I am sure you are familiar with. It was remanded to the Appeals Court (case was from 2005) to address secondary and contributory infringment. Haven't found a decision as of yet.. still looking. Original judgement was for Grokster, but the Supreme Court indicated the ruling was wrong and sent it back.
In Grokster they address the situation of infringing vs non-infringing uses of a device or technology. When it is clear that the overwhelming use of the item in question is for infringing activities, it appears to me that the court rules it to be illegal. What's your take on it? Or do I get ot hear about bomb books some more?