Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mark Cuban to fund Grokster vs. MGM case.

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the mark-if-you-read-this-we-heart-you dept.

Deadric writes "According to Mark Cuban's latest blog entry, he will help fund the Grokster vs. MGM case, which threatens to destroy the Betamax shield."

6 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortunately worded by DSLAMngu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The headline seemed to indicate that Mark Cuban was funding the destruction of the Betamax shield. Someone should make it clear that he is actually helping the EFF to defend Grokster against the RIAA.

    This is not the editors' best work.

  2. Actually... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos, but rather watch TV shows at a more convenient time

    ...the court recognized that there were people who did this, who probably were in violation of copyright law. An actual infringement is one of the requirements for contributory infringement. What they decided was that the potential illegal uses did not negate the tool's legal uses.

    There is no way to rule against Grokster without violating the Betamax shield. Essentially, a tool has legal and illegal uses (specific circumvention tools like DeCSS might not fall under this, but otherwise the Betamax shield is wide). Can we punish the producers because a significant amount of the population chooses to break the law, using their tools?

    If so, I would like to see the class action suit against Ford, Mazda, Chevrolet, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW et al for creating tools of speeding. At least around here, official numbers say 90%+ speed at times (and the rest are probably liars). You can fine the perp, but you don't punish the toolmaker.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Actually... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't have to be. In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court said that technology need only have potential substantial noninfringing uses for the developer to avoid contributory liability.

      This serves two purposes: First, it allows the developer and the world time to figure out what the technology is good for. P2P networks are copyright neutral -- anything can go over the network. Thus, copyright holders can take advantage of it as well. Second, it prevents copyright holders -- really a subset of them, in fact (even back in '84, some were in favor of the Betamax) -- to extend their copyright on a specific work to what would effectively be a patent on a technology.

      Grokster has won in the lower courts because their case is a slam dunk for Betamax. The only way that they can lose is if Betamax gets overturned.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  3. Re:The "Betamax shield" may not fit anyway. by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The question is not whether p2p'ing shows will be legal (it won't). The question is whether p2p itself will be legal, just as the Bemax question was whether VCRs would be legal.

    From the article:

    the case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation: When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?

    in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (a.k.a. the "Sony Betamax ruling") held that a distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. In MGM v. Grokster, the Ninth Circuit found that P2P file-sharing software is capable of, and is in fact being used for, noninfringing uses. Relying on the Betamax precedent, the court ruled that the distributors of Grokster and Morpheus software cannot be held liable for users' copyright violations. The plaintiffs appealed, and in December 2004 the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

  4. the obl joke by myspys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not their best work?

    you must be new here

    this IS as good as it gets around here!

  5. Re:Mark Cuban by sjwaste · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's got a tremendous ego, at least the match of Steve Jobs. He's a bit of a control freak. But he knows how to get things done, and despite his ego, he does have a more human and compassionate side.

    In my opinion, that's not ego at all. What's wrong with a guy being aware and proud of his own abilities? It seems today everyone tries to go out of their way to make other people feel important even when they're not contributing shit, and anyone who decides they want to admit they've done well has an "ego". Well, it seems he's earned the right to do so.