how-to block ads
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to NGOwner
Re: Betamax has been overturned
said by NGOwner  :Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this. Horseshit yourself. Just because Souter says it doesn't make it true. This case fell squarely within Sony, and it could not have been error to decide it under Sony when the supreme court hasn't gotten around to inventing a new legal rule to decide this case with yet.
The USSC don't know much about, nor do they care much about, intellectual property law, which is why the American people get stuck with bullsh1t decisions like this one. The Betamax case was a good one, but now appears to be a fluke. | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | said by Kaltes :
said by NGOwner :Horseshit yourself. Just because Souter says it doesn't make it true.
Considering Souter is speaking for a UNIFIED Supreme Court of the United States on a case brought before it, sonny, I would say that does make it true. said by Kaltes :
said by NGOwner :This case fell squarely within Sony, and it could not have been error to decide it under Sony when the supreme court hasn't gotten around to inventing a new legal rule to decide this case with yet.
See above. In particular the quote: quote:
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.
That right there is the basis for SCOTUS vacating the lower court's ruling. Sony never showed a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement, hence the ruling covering Sony's Betamax. Conversely, Grokster/Streamcast spoke almost exclusively of their products' capability of copyright infringement. Your opinion, despite your (presumed) credentials, is that this is a bullsh1t decision. That's your right. Personally I think it was the right one. [NG]Owner --
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by NGOwner :Considering Souter is speaking for a UNIFIED Supreme Court of the United States on a case brought before it, sonny, I would say that does make it true. The supreme court decides the law, not the truth. I suppose you think if the supreme court said 2+2=5, that would be true as well? 
said by NGOwner :That right there is the basis for SCOTUS vacating the lower court's ruling. Wrong. The reasoning is detailed later in the opinion where souter outlines 3 reasons he feels distinguish Grokster. None of those 3 reasons were relevant to the Sony analysis.
said by NGOwner :Sony never showed a purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement, hence the ruling covering Sony's Betamax. Actually, Sony *DID* exactly that, and this opinion confirms it. Sony marketed "build a library" of copyrighted files, something which clearly encourages infringement. Souter lamely tries to claim this would 'not necessarily' be encouraging infringement, when in fact such a claim would have resulted in this court killing the betamax, and Sony as well.
said by NGOwner :Conversely, Grokster/Streamcast spoke almost exclusively of their products' capability of copyright infringement. You don't know that. You aren't familiar with Groksters marketing materials and internal memos, you are repeating what Souter says as if it were fact, when it is ONE MANS OPINION. The fact that the other 8 went along with it doesnt mean they agreed with every single statement, only the result.
said by NGOwner :Your opinion, despite your (presumed) credentials My credentials are made clear by my reasoning. Your lack of credentials are made clear by the fact that you can do nothing but regurgitate what Souter wrote. | |
|
