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. Also, unlike me, you know nothing of vicarious and contributory infringement, which made up the core analysis of the Grokster case in the lower courts. Unless you are an IP lawyer, don't even TRY to argue about this case with me. You aren't qualified. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| said by Kaltes :said by NGOwner :Horseshit. Read the whole opinion before spewing garbage like this. Also, unlike me, you know nothing of vicarious and contributory infringement, which made up the core analysis of the Grokster case in the lower courts. Unless you are an IP lawyer, don't even TRY to argue about this case with me. You aren't qualified. Just curious...are YOU an IP lawyer Kaltes? Or any sort of attorney? Paralegal even?
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by tapeloop :Just curious...are YOU an IP lawyer Kaltes? Or any sort of attorney? Paralegal even? Yes I am an IP lawyer. I have been following this case since the day the district court issued its excellent opinion. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| I see. Well rather than wait for Nina Tottenberg's recap this afternoon I'm just now printing out the 55-pg. opinion and dissent to pore over during lunch. 
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | reply to Kaltes
So how does this differ from existing law on vicarious infringement? You can't bring up Betamax in that one; Sony pre-dates that particular doctrine. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by russotto :So how does this differ from existing law on vicarious infringement? You can't bring up Betamax in that one; Sony pre-dates that particular doctrine. Wrong, third party liability for infringement, which includes vicarious liability, predates Sony, so don't talk about shit you don't know, k thx. |
|
