|
|
<< Election Day Starts Sept. 18 | Main | Bush Lies Again in Olympics Ad >> August 19, 2004Victory for Tech FreedomThe 9th Circuit, the same court that shut down Napster, just gave a major legal victory to the more decentralized Peer-to-Peer (P2) networks. The court held that the companies producing the software could not be held liable for copyright infringement by users of the software: "The peer-to-peer file-sharing technology at issue is not simply a tool engineered to get around" previous rulings against the Napster file-sharing service, wrote Judge Sidney R. Thomas in a ruling for the panel. "The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution."This is important for those who think modern copyright law has largely become an oppressive force suppressing creativity and innovation, not promoting it as was its original purpose. But it's also important for the more general principle that those who give only indirect support should not be held liable for crimes committed with those tools by others. In a country were John Ashcroft would like to throw anyone in jail who ever said hello to an alleged "terrorist" (which is increasingly defined as pretty garden-variety criminals), it's also an important legal win. Posted by Nathan at August 19, 2004 06:53 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsNathan: Is this an extension of the Betamax jurisprudence? And will this shut down the attempts by the RIAA to ban MP3 players and other very useful portable media devices that are often used to play illegal music etc. Or will the RIAA continue to try to get Congress to act stupidly? Posted by: fester at August 20, 2004 10:06 AM just an irrelevant positive comment... Posted by: self at August 20, 2004 12:43 PM However, congress may soon overrule the Betamax decision with something called the "ICAA" act, which allows copyright owners to recover damages from any technology firm whose products "intentionally induce" copyright violation. But since the law defines "intent" as "intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.", anybody who creates a product which could foreseeably enable infringement can get sued. For more info - Posted by: David Carroll at August 21, 2004 06:36 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|