On MovieTome: New writers on 'Uncharted' the movie
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 18 of 28:
Next »
« Previous
Please be clear, ZDNet.
I wish ZDNet would get the decision right. They do in part of the article, but the beginning includes an implicit, mistaken view of the decision.

Here's what I mean.

The following paragraph appears to assume that a p2p project that could be used for sharing is safe only because no individual or orgainization takes responsibility:

Nilson cautions that neither he nor anyone else can speak with authority on behalf of the project as a whole. For the most part, that's exactly why he and the others feel sheltered. As is the case with many loosely organized, open-source programming projects, there is no central entity, no "Shareaza" company or organization that issues paychecks or answers lawyers' telephone calls.


And then a later paragraph shoots down this "no one is responsible" argument:

Of course, the open-source developers' confidence may not be justified. Jeffrey D. Neuburger, an intellectual property attorney at Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner in New York, said they risk drawing legal attention if they make even a small slip over the line of piracy "inducement."

Sounds scary, doesn't it?!


The main issue in the Supreme Court case is intent to induce, and that finally becomes the topic further into the article.
But I wish the article had been clear from the start.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 07/15/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Wrong AGAIN Batman...  realitycheck101 | 07/15/05
Workers at Ford should be jailed!  Reverend MacFellow | 07/15/05
like you said  toxicfreak | 07/15/05
Not every criminal  Otto_Delete | 07/15/05
Crime?  tic swayback | 07/15/05
He was misled by the article.  Anton Philidor | 07/15/05
You should be ashamed  James T. Kirk | 07/15/05
Thank you for the laughs  voska | 07/15/05
RE: Crime?  richdave | 04/26/06
Sorry...  bchesmer | 07/16/05
Wrong! No law can have retroactive effects  PhilippeV | 12/23/05
Piracy Is Alive And Well In The USA  itanalyst | 07/15/05
Amen  Protector | 07/15/05
Hilary Clinton To Push GTA: San Andreas Sales Through Roof  itanalyst | 07/15/05
She thinks her husband is the only one that can have fun  Protector | 07/15/05
And yet no one is using the new Napster  tic swayback | 07/15/05
My kingdom for a preview function  tic swayback | 07/15/05
Please be clear, ZDNet.  Anton Philidor | 07/15/05
Haven't You Learned By Now ? ZDNET Is King Of FUD.  itanalyst | 07/15/05
Business model  tic swayback | 07/15/05
Good Question tic,  No_Ax_to_Grind | 07/15/05
Maybe not  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/15/05
So If Grokster Had Released An Open-Source, Free P2P App  itanalyst | 07/15/05
That's my question  tic swayback | 07/15/05
Anger is not a legal reason...  Anton Philidor | 07/15/05
Yes, no and maybe  Real World | 07/15/05
Profiting makes you more visible  voska | 07/15/05
Keep in mind  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/15/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement