Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: techlawadvisor.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to techlawadvisor.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:Just a little side note on the legality... by eldavojohn · · Score: 1 · on Digital Music Sales Skyrocket in 2005
    As far as I am aware, the only people who've ever got in trouble for the mp3s they had were sharing those mp3s over public peer-to-peer networks. They were illegally distributing them. The users of allofmp3.com are not doing this; they are purchasing them from an organisation that has the legal right to distribute them, and importing them into their home countries. It's just the same as if they ordered the CDs by mail order from Russia because they're cheaper there. Well, just because no one's gotten in trouble for it doesn't mean it's legal. For you see, the RIAA and even the Russian government doesn't like what's going on with sites like allofmp3. I bet someone is being paid off over there to let this slide.

    There's an interesting article at tech law advisor.
  2. Re:My experiences purchasing and downloading mp3s by spagetti_code · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Legal Music Downloads Increase in 2005
    Yes, Allofmp3 has by far the best combination of UI (just brilliant, kudos to the programmers), selection and price.

    But it's legality is quite dubious and the RIAA has had a couple of goes at it. At the moment it lives in a loophole of the russian copyright system that is unlikely to be closed - those russians have bigger problems to deal with first.

    So I guess it depends on how squeeky clean do you want to be???

  3. Re:What the hell by ajakk · · Score: 1 · on RIAA Cracks Down on Internet2 File Sharing
    I sure hope that you aren't in law school (or a lawyer). First, the creation of a new law against the circumvention of copyright protection measures has nothing to do with the Betamax case. The Betamax case was about contributory and vicarious liability of the makers of the VCR. That ruling did not have anything to do with circumventing technological measures. In addition, nothing in the DMCA has anything to do with VHS tape prices and the like. I agree that the Betamax ruling stated that non-substantial non-infringing could still remove one from contributory liability for copyright infringement. However, that has NOTHING TO DO with the DMCA and circumvention of technological measures.
    However, the DMCA was passed years later, and takes precident over the betamax ruling, which is why Grokster wasn't protected from liability, even though it was in the same situation as Betamax. It was in the exact same position as betamax in every important way: it's use is overwhelmingly infringing, although it can be (and is) used for noninfringing purposes; it carried a wanring about violating copyrights, but then advertisements talked about the same things that Betamax did: Download your favorite music, free music, free movies, etc.
    Unless you didn't notice, Grokster was found not to be liable for contributory infringement. And what did the Ninth Circuit base its ruling on? Wait ... what could it be ... THE BETAMAX CASE:
    Any examination of contributory copyright infringement must be guided by the seminal case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ("Sony-Betamax").
    And how many times did the court cite the DMCA? Wait ... I think you can figure it out ... ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

    Of course, the Supreme Court has the ability to overturn its decision in Betamax, and it did take the appeal of the Grokster decision.

  4. Re:I see. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act
    " People that sell weapons, tools, and cars better be punished too. "

    Interestingly, Hatch introduced (it says here) legislation "in March 2000 to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their guns".

    'Hypocritical douche-bag', is the phrase you're fumbling for.

  5. Re:Not only a repost, a non-issue. by Armethius · · Score: 0 · on Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act

    You've posted this twice now and it's absolutely incorrect.

    The Senate Judiciary committee had a hearing on it yesterday and Hatch expressed his intent to push this through in whatever form.

    For more information on this bill visit

    Tech Law Advisor's Perpetual Blog on the INDUCE Act

  6. Re:Backwards reasoning... by zurab · · Score: 1 · on U.S. Supreme Court: Public Anonymity No Right

    Google it. This paper is an interesting read as well.

  7. Wrong. Read the law. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1 · on Hotel Being Sued for Using the Dewey Decimal System

    The original 1870 work, minus title, is wholly and unambiguously in the public domain. That much is certain.

    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html#public


    Trademark is admittedly a different story. Had they called it the "Dewey Decimal Hotel, LLP" or actually sold copies for an index of their own under that name, I'd be swayed to the "open and shut case" they're harping about. Merely mentioning the name and ostensibly using a public domain version doesn't seem so "open and shut" else Ford would be slammed by Daimler-Chrysler for for repeatedly mentioning the Mercedes mark in their annual reports.

    There's an interesting article about the vagueries of establishing trademark infringement damages here:

    http://techlawadvisor.com/wires/ip.html/a.