how-to block ads
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| reply to Primis1
Re: Thats stupid..
said by Primis1  : quote:
The problem is that by ruling in this peculiar way, based on this slim argument of the "intent" in marketing, they've opened the door later for someone else to come back and say "...but you ruled against Grokster" in a situation that isn't relevant or related to "marketing intent". The argument will now become "But everyone KNOWS you can do this over it", and boom, suddenly everyone and everything is a culprit. And if anyone argues it they'll scream "OMG!!! GROSKTER PRECEDENT!! GROKSTER PRECEDENT!!" until they get their way.
You guys sometimes forgot, and initial intended precedent is rarely then defined or considered the same way later on. And this is precisely a case of where they'll be quite happy to get even just this, because they know they can twist it to how they want not too far down the road, and have their way. You are absolutely right. This is what Grokster and StreamCast tried to do using the Betamax ruling as a shield to protect their creation.
My opinion is, had Grokster and StreamCast not touted their products' ability to source and obtain copyrighted material and had instead only touted the legitimate and legal uses of its software, the SCOTUS verdict might have been completely different.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to PDXPLT
quote:
This was a 9-0 unanimous decision. It wasn't even close. And remember this wasn'y directed at the concept of p2p generally, only at the way Grokster and StreamCast was marketing it. Under the decision, if you have a p2p company that was actually doing something to discurage illegal use (the way, say, eBay polices its auctions against illegal activty), they would be OK.
I understand what you're saying regarding intent and just "how it was marketed". The claim being made here of "intent" is at best *very* suspect and flimsy.
The problem is that by ruling in this peculiar way, based on this slim argument of the "intent" in marketing, they've opened the door later for someone else to come back and say "...but you ruled against Grokster" in a situation that isn't relevant or related to "marketing intent". The argument will now become "But everyone KNOWS you can do this over it", and boom, suddenly everyone and everything is a culprit. And if anyone argues it they'll scream "OMG!!! GROSKTER PRECEDENT!! GROKSTER PRECEDENT!!" until they get their way.
You guys sometimes forgot, and initial intended precedent is rarely then defined or considered the same way later on. And this is precisely a case of where they'll be quite happy to get even just this, because they know they can twist it to how they want not too far down the road, and have their way. | |
|
