![]() Like a computer or a car, which you can own. I shouldn't have to argue why I shouldn't have a gun any more than I should have to argue why I should have a computer or a car.Īrguing (quoted below) is that the gun is Streamcast morpheus software#Neither of them do(they control some software used to access the networks, but there is no control over the networks - that was a key point in their defense), and as a result they walk - your college students won't likely be so lucky, although I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. There's a huge difference between their position and the college students who were working hard to ensure people could trade music and movies - they can't claim ignorance, and they likely won't be able to claim non-infringing use of their networks either.Īlso, as soon as they (the college students) shut their networks down the file-trading stopped (over their networks at least) - this case is mostly about gnutella and whether or not Grokster and Streamcast control gnutella and kazaa. The other key point they made was that there was a substantial non-infringing use for the technology. One of the key points in their defense was the fact that they could all close their doors tomorrow and there would be no change in what was being traded on the networks. The only thing this does is absolve Grokster and Streamcast of responsibility for it because they're not "substantially contributing" to the infringement. The order specifically says that there is copyright infringement going on. Read the decision - I know it's a bit long, but it's very easy reading for a court order. They were sharing files they did not have the copyright on, and thus were commiting copyright infringement. They're still screwed on the second count, though. That is to say, they control the site and traffic but they have no safeguards for restricting usage. The first count is merely an indexing service which would stand somewhere between this decision and napster. The decision here reflects on the first, but not the second, count. They'd written and were hosting a site which indexed all available files on the campus network, and they'd put files in publicly available directories on their servers. The students were doing 2 things, in general. Though the maker of the medium they were using to distribute files can't be sued, that's not to say that the individual users can't be. ![]() The college students themselves were themselves making the files available, or downloading the files. All the judge said was that the companies putting out the file sharing programs can't be sued because their product was being used for illegal purposes. This doesn't set any kind of precedent at all for the college students, unfortunately for them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |