Hollywood wins piracy battle > Read The Full Verdict Here

Read The Full Verdict Here

I'm going to laugh my ass off when the RIAA/MPAA goes bankrupt from all of these lawsuits.

reply to NGOwner
Here is a key quote:

quote:

---

We ... [hold] that one who distributes
a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

---

quote:

---

In sum, this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error. Sony dealt with a claim of liability based solely on distributing a product with alternative lawful and unlawful uses, with knowledge that some users would follow the unlawful course. The case struck a balance between the interests of protection and innovation by holding that the product's capability of substantial lawful employment should bar the imputation of fault and consequent secondary liability for the unlawful acts of others.

MGM's evidence in this case most obviously addresses a different basis of liability for distributing a product open
to alternative uses. Here, evidence of the distributors' words and deeds going beyond distribution as such shows a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault, but from inferring a patently illegal objective from statements and actions showing what that objective was.

There is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error. On remand, reconsideration of MGM's motion for summary judgment will be in order.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

---

reply to NGOwner

The syllabus is not the opinion

Perhaps because I don't have access to the actual opinion. This is what was posted on the Supreme Court's website in regards to this case.

Are you saying that the syllabi posted on the website bear no resemblence to the actual opinions?

Come now ... you're just trying to incite ....

[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots.

Not that it's relevant here, but mistakes in summaries happen. For example, the legal precedent for "corporate rights" is based on a mistake in the headnotes of Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886.
»www.thomhartmann.com/theft.shtml