birdfeedr
Premium
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Read the brief
Read the brief from the amicus curiae brief link. It's quite informative.
Essentially it says making available is not infringement, and uploading to an authorized agent (MediaSentry) isn't infringement, either.
Plaintiffs, according to the brief, must present evidence of upload to a third-party. Which, of course, they are unable to do. Even if they had the PC before the Kazaa was uninstalled. |
|
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| Yes and even though they downloaded the files they can't prove who was sharing the file on line give the thousands who where hosting these files at the time. They would actually have to witness him with their own eyeballs sharing the files with somebody. They can't use his computer to incriminate him. That would be like stealing a baseball bat, braining somebody and then blaming the person you ripped off because his bat was a potential murder weapon.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! |
|
birdfeedr
Premium
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Transmaster  :Yes and even though they downloaded the files they can't prove who was sharing the file on line give the thousands who where hosting these files at the time. Well, they do have the source IP, and Cox identified his account as in use at the time. His defense to the lawsuit has not mentioned "it must have been someone else using my computer." He says the files on his computer are fair use copies of CDs he already owns.
And, he uninstalled Kazaa after the complaint.
Hmmm. |
|
chuckman
@xspedius.net
| reply to birdfeedr
All the EFF argues in its brief is that in order for a copyright holder's distribution rights to be infringed, there must be actual dissemination. It explicitly states that it takes no position with regards to whether actual dissemination is required for a copyright holder's other exclusive rights to be infringed, such as his or her reproduction rights. Thus the EFF isn't arguing that if there is no actual dissemination there is no infringement. They are just arguing that if there is no dissemination, there is no infringement of the distribution right. Just thought I would chime in to clarify.
-chuckman |
|
LadyCash
Shibah
Premium
join:2003-03-13
43938/43952
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to birdfeedr
said by birdfeedr :Read the brief from the amicus curiae brief link. It's quite informative. I liked what I read. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
