Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Betamax has been overturned
said by fiberguy  : where do you come off saying that a substantial part of file sharing is non-infringing? If you knew the case law, you would know that 'substantial noninfringing uses' were not measured as a proportion of all use. In the betamax case, the device was saved without ANY evidence that ANY owner used it for noninfringing uses. The language is whether a device is CAPABLE of noninfringing uses, not what proportion those uses comprise of the whole!
Once again it is pretty damn pointless for a lawyer who knows the case law and context that this new case fits in with a bunch of non-lawyers who never read Betamax, who never read Napster, who never read the excellent Grokster trial court opinion, etc. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Once again it is pretty damn pointless for a lawyer who knows the case law and context that this new case fits in with a bunch of non-lawyers who never read Betamax, who never read Napster, who never read the excellent Grokster trial court opinion, etc.
You trying to say you are a lawyer or something?
Actually, regarding BetaMax, I was watching legal analysis review of the decision and there were laywers and ex-judges speaking about this in particular. Basically, it was stated that Betas intent was for personal use. The intent of the file sharing system was to transport data between users and has greater potential for abuse.
So, I guess you are right, judges speaking on it are just a bunch of non-lawyers that don't know case law. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by fiberguy : Basically, it was stated that Betas intent was for personal use. The intent of the file sharing system was to transport data between users and has greater potential for abuse. "transport data between users" is also personal use.  whatever those people were trying to say, whatever point they were trying to get across, you clearly didn't get it.
said by fiberguy :So, I guess you are right, judges speaking on it are just a bunch of non-lawyers that don't know case law. Those people you supposedly saw on tv might know what they are talking about. You clearly do not. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Wow! I guess you told me..
It clear that you don't know either, since you had nothing to add!
It's really lame to post the "you don't know what you are talking about" if you, yourself, are not going to add anything, so I will leave it at that.
However, what I posted was nothing more than what they said, and I agree with them. |
|
