genea
look and say
quines
rat
robump
self-similar
song history
string synth
stroids
tm interpreter
Unless otherwise stated, all original content on this site is licensed under your choice of the GNU FDL or the Creative Commons ShareAlike License.
Hopefully, this website is valid. You can check the XHTML, the CSS, and the RSS.
The EFF has won Grokster v.s. MGM! This is an exciting, landmark victory for peer-to-peer networks. In short, the ruling means that the people who write peer-to-peer software that runs decentralized networks such as Gnutella cannot be held liable for copyright infringement that takes place on those networks.
The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light
of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding
exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and
vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation
conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless,
taking that step would satisfy the Copyright immediate economic aims.
However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways
with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.
Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological
environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet
innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th
Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive
to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose
works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet,
history has shown that time and market forces often provide
equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a
player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal
computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player.Thus, it is prudent for
courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories
for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their
apparent present magnitude.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has admonished us to leave such matters to
Congress. In Sony-Betamax, the Court spoke quite clearly about the
role of Congress in applying copyright law to new technologies. As
the Supreme Court stated in that The direction of Art. I is that
Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts. When, as here, the Constitution is permissive, the
sign of how far Congress has chosen to go can come only from 464 U.S.
at 456 (quoting Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518,
530 (1972)).