Good stuff from Daily Koz.
Regarding Grokster:
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice Souter wrote.
Regarding guns:
Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved the National Rifle Association's top priority ahead of a $491 billion defense bill, setting up a vote on legislation to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over gun crimes.
"The president believes that the manufacturer of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
[Senator Larry] Craig said such lawsuits are "predatory and aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry," unfairly blaming dealers and manufacturers for the crimes of gun users.
Link (thanks, Earl!)
Reader comment: Paul says: "I have to point out that: The actual point in the Supreme Court decision
quoted in the recent post 'Shoot someone? Not Smith & Wesson’s fault. Copy
a movie? Grokster’s fault' is in fact the text that isn’t highlighted with
a bold typeface.
"It would be tragic to give people the impression that what was quoted is
in any way negative by using ctrl + b on two sections of text, because the
classy way to do such a thing, and the usual way to detect purposeful
neglect, is to simply remove what you don’t like with an ellipsis.
"The ignored and obviously overlooked part reads 'with the object of
promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or
other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.' Relate that to gun
manufacturers and we would hope, and pray, that anyone who sells a gun
that is advertised (promoted) as '… well suited for killing your cheating
spouse…' would be liable for any one using it for the purpose of killing
some one, and if Ford advertised a F150 as 'Great for getting away from
the cops after robbing a bank' they would be liable as well. We could add
such obviousness to nearly anything: 'our pillows are designed to be 25%
more efficient in smothering some one!' or 'Our toilet paper is much
better for toilet papering some one’s house!'"
Cory replies: Paul's comments on the Inducement doctrine for Grokster are a
little incomplete. The inducement doctrine handed down by the
court attaches liability to someone who advertises a
technology for a purpose that is later to be held infringing.
There's no way to know, a priori, whether a use will be held
to be infringing. Therefore, any technology that is advertised
for a use that has not previously been litigated has massive
liability under Grokster. For example, Sony advertised the
VCR as useful for both time-shifting and librarying: the
court only found that time-shifting was legal. If librarying
is found to be illegal — say, in a case that's litigated
next year — it makes Sony and everyone else who's advertised
librarying as a feature liable under Grokster. Current
technologies that advertise uses that haven't been found to
be noninfringing include the Slingbox ("space- shifting"),
the Promise TV (capturing the entire multiplex and buffering
it for 30 days), mythtv (commercial skipping), iTunes/
WinAmp/Windows Media Player (ripping CDs), and many others.
