GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

DiVo · 10-23-2003, 04:22 PM

I am no lawyer, but the Sony v. MPAA (aka Betamax Case) implemented a test that if there is significant non-infringing use then there is no censure.

Contributory infringement is not necessarily enough. With the DMCA, rules have changed a little in that there may or may not be recourse if it is easy to remove the infringing part of the program. This is where it gets really shady (i.e. grokster and other P2P cases).

I still cannot fathom how they could convince a judge that you can't link to third parties that may or may not infringe. Of course that is what they ruled in the 2600 case with the link to the DeCSS case.

I don't know if any of this changes anything. That is why there are judges and the appeals courts.

The central issue is always going to be that the patents ARE legal until they fail in court. All of these small but significant legal isuues would melt away if the patents were thrown out.

10-23-2003, 04:22 PM
DiVo Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 153	I am no lawyer, but the Sony v. MPAA (aka Betamax Case) implemented a test that if there is significant non-infringing use then there is no censure. Contributory infringement is not necessarily enough. With the DMCA, rules have changed a little in that there may or may not be recourse if it is easy to remove the infringing part of the program. This is where it gets really shady (i.e. grokster and other P2P cases). I still cannot fathom how they could convince a judge that you can't link to third parties that may or may not infringe. Of course that is what they ruled in the 2600 case with the link to the DeCSS case. I don't know if any of this changes anything. That is why there are judges and the appeals courts. The central issue is always going to be that the patents ARE legal until they fail in court. All of these small but significant legal isuues would melt away if the patents were thrown out.