Supreme Court Rules against Grokster

Re: key

Just read more details, seems they are saying the old betamax case still stands (so VCR/DVD makers still safe) but that they are applying a different set of rules to p2p softwear

And who says money does not buy you "justice"?

key

> But they still sell guns without the sellers or manufactures liability.

I think the key to verdict is whether firm that markets product users illegal use as primary means of getting sales. For example if gun manufacturers were selling their guns saying that they are best used to kill your next door neighbour (that is clearly illegal under most circumstances that exlude everyone but xoggoth's pikey scum "neighbours"), then they could be docked.

So Xerox and gun manufacturers are okay, but Grokster ain't.

In practice it just means that there will be no VC funds for P2P companies, but who cares if there are good open source free implementations anyway?

Strange Country

"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."


But they still sell guns without the sellers or manufactures liability.

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

I would say this is key part and if it is what they actually said how could they rule against grokster unless they were actually promoting it as such? (which highly doubt)

Actually unless what saying here is wrong this would have a greater impact on vid/dvd recorders in my books as they "promote" their devices for recording tv programs, which would be an infringment of copyright

That is likely to scare the crap out of Xerox and all video and DVD recorder manufacturers then.

"A few minutes ago, the US Supreme Court has ruled unaniumously against Grokster today. This ruling means that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet. More info about the case here.." There's not an entirely accurate statement - what The Supremes said is that "One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses." The promotion is the key part of that statement.

More: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...DEKVB1.DTL

---

That's crap news, even though I have not run a P2P app for at least 6 months, nor do I have any available disk space for stuff available on P2P, yet its a big blow :rolleyes