File-swapping lawsuits loom in Canada

TalkBack 6 of 19:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Grokster is the new betamax

http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=1324

Let's start with Frackman's claim that P2P systems don't have
significant noninfringing uses. He downplayed evidence that
public domain material, shareware, authorized concerts and
books are found on P2P networks, claiming that 90% of P2P
usage is infringing. Here's Kroft in '83:
Petitioners only put on evidence from a few educational, sports,
and religious people ... All that the Petioner's survey showed was
that the Betamax is used 9% of the time to copy that type of
material, as opposed to 80% of the time to copy the type of
entertainment programming owned by the respondents and the
amici that have come to this Court. On those numbers and the
evidence before the trial court, it never could have made a
finding that Betamax was suitable -- the off the air recording
aspect -- was suitable for substantial noninfringing use.


Another of Frackman's themes was that P2P software makers
should have worked with the music industry to install filters to
prevent infringement. Flashback to 1983, when Kroft said:
The real way for Sony to have avoided this problem would have
been to cooperate with the copyright owners in devising
technology which would allow the broadcaster to jam the video
recorder from copying the kind of material that is owned by
people who object. That is the only sure fire way to do it.


Later in last week's argument, Judge Thomas took Frackman's
argument (knowledge - ability = contributory infringement) to
its logical conclusion by asking whether he thought Xerox
should be held liable when a UCLA student uses a photocopier to
make infringing copies. Here's what happened to Kroft in '83:
Justice Stevens: Under your test, supposing somebody tells the
Xerox people that there are people making illegal copies with
their machine, and they know it. What are they supposed to do?
... Your view of the law is that as long as Xerox knows that there
is some illegal copying going on, Xerox is a contributory
infringer?

Kroft: To be consistent, your honor, I'd have to say yes.

Justice Stevens: A rather extreme position.

Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 02/14/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS to Achieve Highly Available, Load-Balanced Clusters Dell The Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS operating system integrates Cluster ... Download Now