Comments on: Grokster Outrage http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/27/grokster-outrage/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:04:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Dave http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/27/grokster-outrage/comment-page-1/#comment-7037 Dave Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:14:41 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1837#comment-7037 dolphin- That may be what Grokster says NOW, but I believe that when it was launched it promoted "music, movies, for free!" and actively encouraged trading copyrighted material to get people to use its service. dolphin-
That may be what Grokster says NOW, but I believe that when it was launched it promoted “music, movies, for free!” and actively encouraged trading copyrighted material to get people to use its service.

]]> By: dolphin http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/27/grokster-outrage/comment-page-1/#comment-7036 dolphin Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:22:49 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1837#comment-7036 The first paragraph doesn't fit with reality though. Because Grokster was the focus of this case, let's use them as an example. Their website states: "Please take great care not to accidentally share files that are confidential or <b>which you do not have the right to distribute</b>." (emphasis mine) If that is considered to be "promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" then we have a BIG probelm here. The first paragraph doesn’t fit with reality though. Because Grokster was the focus of this case, let’s use them as an example. Their website states: “Please take great care not to accidentally share files that are confidential or which you do not have the right to distribute.” (emphasis mine)

If that is considered to be “promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement” then we have a BIG probelm here.

]]> By: E-mart http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/27/grokster-outrage/comment-page-1/#comment-7035 E-mart Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:42:19 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1837#comment-7035 See page 22, footnote 12 and the accompanying text. The court there suggests that a lack of affirmative steps to prevent illegal use is only relevant when accompanied by other evidence of malintent. I am given pause, however, that there appears to be no standard enunciated for the level of such other evidence required before the lack of protective features becomes relevant (though I've only skimmed the opinion). Is simple prior knowledge of a potential infringing use sufficient to trigger a duty to include measures to protect against such use? Maybe there is sdomething more in the opinion on this, but I expect to see cases down the road mapping out when exactly arises the duty to prevent infringing uses. See page 22, footnote 12 and the accompanying text. The court there suggests that a lack of affirmative steps to prevent illegal use is only relevant when accompanied by other evidence of malintent. I am given pause, however, that there appears to be no standard enunciated for the level of such other evidence required before the lack of protective features becomes relevant (though I’ve only skimmed the opinion). Is simple prior knowledge of a potential infringing use sufficient to trigger a duty to include measures to protect against such use? Maybe there is sdomething more in the opinion on this, but I expect to see cases down the road mapping out when exactly arises the duty to prevent infringing uses.

]]>