Buss, and his not-excellently-supported-by-empirical-evidence rhetoric are discussed on Mixing Memory, along with the answers of the major cognitive sciencists. Worth a read if you are interested in the study of the mind, and how many of these answers relate to that.
That's just a rumor -- it's not true at all. See The Myth of the Binary Key in Brian Jones's MSN blog. It sure does get repeated on Slashdot an aweful lot, though.
Search and seizure BY THE GOVERNMENT without a warrant is illegal and a violation of the constition. Search and seizure by the RIAA and the ISP is perfectly fine, and they certainly don't need a warrant.
I think you misunderstood. My 'teacher' is actually my professor, a lawyer who works in cyberlaw on copyright and trademark cases. He is probably a pretty good lawyer, since he is also a professor at Yale. He would certainly know the evidence presented in this case.
Likewise, I found the Duke review as something to link to, since I can't link you to the actual case on LexusNexus (it's subscribers only). The decision of the actual case is what we read in class, and is what my professor cited. I've read the case -- it specifically says the reason Grokster is guilty is that they advertised copyright violation as a reason to use their service. That's straight from the judges who made the decision, so even though I can't find the actual newsletter, I'm fairly certain this is not just a poor reinterpretation.
Anyway, good luck finding the original advertising. Perhaps the wayback machine has copies of the Grokster newsletter's somewhere -- assuming they had copies on their website at some point.
I don't know where you could find it -- conceivably Grokster would have taken down any copy of it on their own website.
I just reviewed this case in a class I'm taking called Computers and the Law, and our teacher expressely stated that Grokster had promoted trading copyrighted materials as one of their main selling points. A quick Google turned up the Duke review as confirmation of this. If you read the actual case on LexusNexus they say that their ruling is narrow and based on the fact that Grokster encouraged violation of copyright. So it's not nearly as bad as it seems, and is, like other posters have said, very much a straight forward liability case.
The Supreme Court found that Grokster "promoted" abuse solely on evidence that Grokster employees planned to use growth from abuse in scaling their network, and considered ways to use that abuse. They did not find any evidence that Grokster publicly promoted abuse. They found "intent" by a corporation, which is not a person who can "intend" (even if you believe that a person's intent can ever be proven). Hence my comment that Grokster "appreciated" abuse, but did not promote it.
That's just not true. Grokster publically advertised that it could be used for trading copyrighted materials. They even advertised specific copyrighted materials that were available for download. See Duke's analysis.
They say, among other things: "Similarly, Grokster sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted materials."...
Slashdot Mirror
Buss, and his not-excellently-supported-by-empirical-evidence rhetoric are discussed on Mixing Memory, along with the answers of the major cognitive sciencists. Worth a read if you are interested in the study of the mind, and how many of these answers relate to that.
That's just a rumor -- it's not true at all. See The Myth of the Binary Key in Brian Jones's MSN blog. It sure does get repeated on Slashdot an aweful lot, though.
They make a big deal of the fact that Copilot works through all firewalls and proxies, but other than that, not much.
Search and seizure BY THE GOVERNMENT without a warrant is illegal and a violation of the constition. Search and seizure by the RIAA and the ISP is perfectly fine, and they certainly don't need a warrant.
... not withstanding the fact that proving a negative is, in fact, impossible?
That's just a rumor -- it's not true at all. See The Myth of the Binary Key in Brian Jones's MSN blog.
I think you misunderstood. My 'teacher' is actually my professor, a lawyer who works in cyberlaw on copyright and trademark cases. He is probably a pretty good lawyer, since he is also a professor at Yale. He would certainly know the evidence presented in this case.
Likewise, I found the Duke review as something to link to, since I can't link you to the actual case on LexusNexus (it's subscribers only). The decision of the actual case is what we read in class, and is what my professor cited. I've read the case -- it specifically says the reason Grokster is guilty is that they advertised copyright violation as a reason to use their service. That's straight from the judges who made the decision, so even though I can't find the actual newsletter, I'm fairly certain this is not just a poor reinterpretation.
Anyway, good luck finding the original advertising. Perhaps the wayback machine has copies of the Grokster newsletter's somewhere -- assuming they had copies on their website at some point.
I don't know where you could find it -- conceivably Grokster would have taken down any copy of it on their own website.
I just reviewed this case in a class I'm taking called Computers and the Law, and our teacher expressely stated that Grokster had promoted trading copyrighted materials as one of their main selling points. A quick Google turned up the Duke review as confirmation of this. If you read the actual case on LexusNexus they say that their ruling is narrow and based on the fact that Grokster encouraged violation of copyright. So it's not nearly as bad as it seems, and is, like other posters have said, very much a straight forward liability case.
The Supreme Court found that Grokster "promoted" abuse solely on evidence that Grokster employees planned to use growth from abuse in scaling their network, and considered ways to use that abuse. They did not find any evidence that Grokster publicly promoted abuse. They found "intent" by a corporation, which is not a person who can "intend" (even if you believe that a person's intent can ever be proven). Hence my comment that Grokster "appreciated" abuse, but did not promote it.
...
That's just not true. Grokster publically advertised that it could be used for trading copyrighted materials. They even advertised specific copyrighted materials that were available for download. See Duke's analysis.
They say, among other things:
"Similarly, Grokster sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted materials."