Michael said "Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products.'""
Well, the Grokster decision simply re-applied the Sony-Betamax et al. analysis. Grokster and other p2p software authors cannot be 'presumed' liable for the infringement of others using the software IF the software (or other product) has a substantial non-infringing use AND the software vendor has no way to limit or control the infringing use.
If the evidence adduced by MGM, etc. showed that all or nearly all of the use of the Grokster software was infringing then under existing precedent the Grokster authors COULD be liable for the infringement of the end users.
In this recent case the plaintiffs simply failed to meet that burden.
Not being picky, but accuracy seems important in these instances.
Slashdot Mirror
Michael said "Recent court rulings have held that developers of p2p file sharing software cannot be held liable for 'for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products.'"" Well, the Grokster decision simply re-applied the Sony-Betamax et al. analysis. Grokster and other p2p software authors cannot be 'presumed' liable for the infringement of others using the software IF the software (or other product) has a substantial non-infringing use AND the software vendor has no way to limit or control the infringing use. If the evidence adduced by MGM, etc. showed that all or nearly all of the use of the Grokster software was infringing then under existing precedent the Grokster authors COULD be liable for the infringement of the end users. In this recent case the plaintiffs simply failed to meet that burden. Not being picky, but accuracy seems important in these instances.