Is Supremes vote on Grokster "Not one-sided"?
The Supremes have laid down the law in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. et al., v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. Volokh Conspirator David Post writes that, yes, the Supremes have handed the entertainment industry a big win -- "but actually not quite as one-sided as all that." Post writes:
"The full court says: even if you meet the Sony standard (i.e., even if you have "substantial noninfringing uses"), you can still be liable for inducing copyright infringement, if there's evidence that you actively encouraged or promoted infringing conduct. And there is such evidence in this case.
More interestingly, though, the Court is split on the question: Can you be liable for distributing file-sharing software if you are NOT actively inducing/encouraging/promoting its use for infringing purposes ..."
More here -- don't miss the trackbacks.
Posted by Laurel Newby on June 27, 2005 at 03:03 PM | Permalink
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Supremes vote on Grokster "Not one-sided"?: