Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
In this case the supreme court ruled (majority opp)
""...in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor."
|
That was nice.. you quoted the case ruling.. very nice.. but you left out the part it referenced.. seeing as your quote was a footnote. Here's the part before yours.
Second, this evidence of unlawful objective is given
added significance by MGM?s showing that neither company
attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms
to diminish the infringing activity using their software.
While the Ninth Circuit treated the defendants?
failure to develop such tools as irrelevant because they
lacked an independent duty to monitor their users? activity,
we think this evidence underscores Grokster?s and
StreamCast?s intentional facilitation of their users? infringement.
Third, there is a further complement to the direct evidence
of unlawful objective. It is useful to recall that
StreamCast and Grokster make money by selling advertising
space, by directing ads to the screens of computers
employing their software. As the record shows, the more
the software is used, the more ads are sent out and the
greater the advertising revenue becomes. Since the extent
of the software?s use determines the gain to the distributors,
the commercial sense of their enterprise turns on
high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing
This evidence alone would not justify an inference of
unlawful intent, but viewed in the context of the entire
record its import is clear.
The unlawful objective is unmistakable
The discussion is whether or not Grokster was intentionally facilitating their users bad ways.
Quote:
however they ruled that it should be sent back because
"[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses"
that was why it was sent back.
|
This line you took from Ginsburg rather than from Souter (Souter wrote the majority, Ginsburg concurred) and you have misquoted.... That's not what it says at all. Try reading the whole thing. The only part you got right in that whole sentence was the items between the quote marks. The rest is incorrect.
Quote:
now getting back to your arguement that the be all and end all of fair use is what is defined in the act
YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE, all you have to do is look at the act and see that there is no fair use "time shifting" defined in the act, nor is there any "format shifting" (your referenced case)
Court case like ones i have quoted have ADDED THESE FAIR USE RIGHTS, and just like the ones specified in the all the cases i have referenced
when the technology can be used for a noninfinging use then technology as a whole is non-infringing.
|
Not True.. for a man that is fighting I am a man.. all men are lefthanded logic, you just did it yourself.
when the technology can be used for a noninfinging use then technology as a whole is non-infringing. Completely UNTRUE and WRONG
In Grokster, they address that issue and the court weighs the infringing uses against the non-infringing uses.
In Betamax, the non-infringing was about 10% to 90% but the technology leant itself to how the decision was rendered.
In Grokster, the opposite held true. They ruled that it was overwhelmingly being used for infringing uses. They did not rule that therefore it was acceptable, in fact they overruled the appeals decision saying so and sent it back for review. Ultimately, the ruling was against Grokster to the tune of $50 million in damages.
[/quote]As a person who understands technology who realizes that torrent technology could be used to significantly reduce the cost of backing up files by eliminating redundancies in the backup (instead of backing up windows 100 times you can reconstruct a corrupt dll in the os from the other copies in the network). I would hate to see the technology killed.
I also don't believe the court would rule that copyright holders have a right to create the situation of a majority infringement and then profit from this action to kill what could be a legitimate technology.[/QUOTE]
The technology must prove itself otherwise it will be shut down. All we have to do is prove the infringements and that the technology suppliers intend its use to be illegal. It can start out with the best intentions, but if the users break the rules and the owners do nothing about it, they can be held liable.