Last Month Articles Index About 60-Seconds Submit an Article Contact Us About the Editor
Last Month Articles Index About 60-Seconds Submit an Article Contact Us About the Editor |
60-SecondsThis column has been a popular read in the pages of user group newsletters for more than a dozen years. For some background, read our 100th Issue.Top Stories* Spam Traps* Safe Computing * NO Dot-Docs * Get ripped off! * Your Press Release * The Kittridge Story 
|
#174.3 follow up to MGM vs. Grokster, October, 2005 Shortly after publishing 60-Second Window #174, "MGM vs. Grokster: what does it mean?" I invited readers to post their comments. There were many, many who responded immediately and they continue to trickle in. Several of the responses were very thoughtful and I requested clarification and rebuttal. Since the comments have slowed to a bare trickle, I've had time, now, to read them all and reflect on the issue. I've chosen a select few to publish as follow-up because of the value of their views: Liability through Intent?H.H. writes: First, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. Intent is an important aspect of this case. I think there is a clear line between the typical ISP and Grokster. Grokster seems to clearly aimed at distributing copyrighted material illegally. With the typical ISP, yes it's going to happen on a small or individual scale but the ISP is not set up to optimize that sort of activity. Comparing tobacco products, hamburgers and firearms is not a good idea. The tobacco industry deliberately mislead the public about the destructive health aspects of an addictive product. They deliberately marketed it to young people, and denied and concealed research showing it will eventually kill you and those around you. I don't agree with people wanting to sue firearm manufacturers. There is no debate that these are dangerous things and have never been portrayed as something harmless. They may be exciting things to some people but they are not addictive. Use of firearms may be viewed in the same way as the use of any dangerous tool. (I don't want to start a debate on gun control - I'll stop there) I agree with you on the dietary aspects. I'm an overweight guy. I know damn well my condition is caused by more calories being consumed than expended. People need to take personal responsibility for this especially when the product itself may be necessary for life (protein intake is a necessity). Finally, the whole VCR recording thing was decided in court many years ago. The entertainment industry DID sue manufacturers of consumer video recording equipment. Fred, this is the landmark case on videorecording and explicitly discusses "time shifting" and legitimate uses for recording. My conclusion - ISPs are not in trouble. They have not optimized their services for the sharing of unlicensed copyrighted material. Ditto regarding Usenet discussion groups (newsgroups). As with the Betamax decision, these newsgroups have many legitimate uses for communication and the sharing of non-copyrighted files. Those are some of my thoughts. Thanks for an interesting article. Fred Replies: Grokster also claimed they were not liable because they did not optimize their services for sharing music, specifically. Yet grounds for secondary liability were, in fact, found. The next reader comment also cites the videorecording argument, but from another point of view... You can comment on this or provide a different slant to the story by sending an email. Thanks for reading...
|
