The Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in MGM v. Grokster is not quite as bad as the tech companies feared it would be, and not nearly as good as the content companies hoped it would be. Unfortunately, the decision also lacks the clarity that the rest of us hoped it would have. As a result, we can reasonably expect more litigation… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (5)Page 1 of 1 pages“Proving a negative is hard in any situation, and for a defendant in this type of case, it probably means turning over just about all records to whoever is suing you, so that the plaintiff can dig for incriminating e-mails and memos about what the defendants knew and when they knew it.”
It’s not the Defendant’s burden to prove a negative. It’s the Plaintiff’s burden to prove intent, the most egregious level of culpability, and which generally gives rise to punitive damages, but which is the most difficult to prove.
Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 8:23 PM “What probably won’t be affected, however, is the willingness of ordinary Americans to share their cultural enthusiasms—music, TV, movies, and everything else—in the online world.”
You missed the most important part ==> “FOR FREE.”
Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 8:25 PM Proving a universal negative is not just hard, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative unless the proof refers to an impossible set of circumstances that cannot exist by definition (e.g. a “square circle” or a “married bachelor”). This case should have been immediately dismissed in the first place. There are many legitimate, and quite legal reasons, for groups of dispersed people to use file sharing software. The fact that it can be used to violate copyright laws is not relevant in the least bit. There is no public safety issue in question to override this standard, unless you consider corporate greed a safety issue.
Posted by Cortez Mack on Jul 12, 2005 at 3:21 PM “There are many legitimate, and quite legal reasons, for groups of dispersed people to use file sharing software.” And How!! This is the important point. What about all the unsigned bands with uncopyrighted works they are dying to let the world hear??
So Public Libraries, watch your back. You are encouraging people to have access to copyrighted works without purchasing them with your “check out” technology.
By making it so easy to for me to check out CDs and VHS tapes and burn them to CD-R and DVD-R, you are inducing me to infringe on the copyrights of the authors.
Oh, and Silly Putty? You are inducing people to pick up copyrighted images from the Sunday Funnies. Watch your back, you are gonna be run out of business
Posted by Walrus Gumboot on Jul 12, 2005 at 6:31 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Mike Godwin
- Split Decision on File-Sharing
Grokster may be a goner, but swapping is here to stay
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
