joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Here is a better article
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html
The important bit here is that whether a software maker is liable depends on:
quote:
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.
What does that mean exactly? I have no idea. |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:  
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
Host:
Site Tools
W.O.W.
FairPoint
World of Warcraft
Alltel Axcess
| That means onshore people who would make like 'omgfreemovieshere.com' would be used if you download their movie search engine.
Bit Torrent for example, is not intended for software + music. Thus, Bram can get away with it.
--
Just because it's a theory, it does not inherit merit of the title.
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon. |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| reply to joebear29
It means that file sharing services that are tailored specifically for music and/or movie trading can be targeted. Open file sharing systems, like FTP or even BT, which don't have specific applications for music or movies should be safe because they really can be used for any kind of data files.
When an application or service is specifically designed around the trading of music or movie files, it's kind of hard to deny what it's being used for.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. |
|
BoomerSooner
Premium
join:2004-02-11
·Pioneer Telephone ..
·Pioneer Internet
| Exactly right stet and the same thing sense that I got from it ...
"Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally."
Now had it said something like ...
"Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if their customers use software to swap songs and movies illegally"
then basically every file transferring internet based application (E-mail, FTP, IM, BT, yadda yadda) would be under the gun.
Seems this will just let them go after the "hard-core" theft software/platforms. The ones that openly advertise that you can get free COPYRIGHTED songs/movies/documents without permission. To go after BT and others, they'd have to PROVE that it was the INTENT and that it's being used PRIMARILY for song/movie swapping. That would require one heck of a lot in my opinion.
--
I'll take "Things Only I Would Know" for $10,000. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to Mike
ambiguity = litigation
bram doesn't have the money to pay lawyers to spend years arguing that he does not fit within "intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally", which is not a quote from the case, btw.
assuming the article is accurate, anyone who releases any p2p app in the US can expect to get sued. no one working on these programs has the money to fight such a lawsuit. that leads to the same result as losing in court. |
|
ArchAngel21x
MacFan Pro
Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
·Internet Nebraska
1 edit | reply to Mike
Re: Here is a better article
said by Mike  :Thus, Bram can get away with it. That's an interesting choice of words. What exactly is Bram "getting away with?" The creation of very useful software? You make it sound like he committed a crime.
--
"I don't mean to be too comedic in the political arena, but these so called abuse photos frankly are mild by comparison to what goes on in South of Market clubs in San Francisco." - Savage on Iraqi prisoner photos. |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to Kaltes
Re: ambiguity = litigation
Here is an actual quote:
»news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5764···newsfeed
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," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
|
|
