G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| This doesn't change anything.
For the media companies that is..
They still don't get it. They are trying to use lawyers and laws to control the industry, instead of innovation and value.
First big problem: None of the file sharing companies are based in the US. Who the hell are they going to sue?
Second big problem: The cable companies are 'common carriers'. That means that they are NOT liable for information that passes over their network. It also means that they cannot be forced to filter/block addresses. Thus they cannot stop a consumer from downloading the software.
So, exactly what changes here? not much. It DOES mean that 'NAPSTER' (the original napster), could never exist. It does NOT mean that Grokster and it's ilk can't exist. It just means that Grokster can't advertise that their progam is used to download music/movies/etc.
It will all blow over. This is really very minor, since all the smart P2P companies are overseas, and bittorrent and the like NEVER advertised themselves as 'movie trading' service. Not to say the bastards won't go after bittorrent, but the lower courts would have to cite precedence (i.e. Bittorrent was NOT ADVERTISED as infringing), and throw the case out.
--
Grand Poobah |
