Monday, October 30, 2006

People are ignorant of copyright laws

Some reader at INQ complains about the jailing of BT admins, which shows a total lack of understanding of the copyright law. P2P operators are liable for copyright infringement because they contribute to or induce direct infringement. In this case, the torrent admins are liable for all the infringement done by others. For more information, refer to the Grokster decision by the US Supreme Court. Once liability for infringement is established, it doesn't make a difference whether it is direct or indirect.

A company caught in copyright infringement is pretty much in a deep hole. The copyright owner can sue for actual damages plus infringer's direct and indirect profits. Worst of all, the copyright owner only needs to show gross revenue of the infringer, the infringer has the burden to show deductible expenses. That's why we see Google deleting copyrighted videos.

A few copyright cases may be enlightening:

McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media. 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557, 566 (7th Cir. 2003)

Wall Data vs. Los Angles Sheriff's Department (May 17, 2006, 9th Cir.)

Andreas v. Volkswagen of. America, Inc., 336 F.3d 789, 56 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 6 (8th Cir. 2003)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou wrote:
"Woodcrest is for ultra low end uncertified use only, Rackable says. Customers want proven Opteron solutions, instead of flaky Woodcrest."

My common sense tells me that Sharikou is ignorant of copywrong laws.


12:56 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting, factual, non-inflammatory. I like it.

Kudos, Sharikou!

Too bad no one wants to discuss it- probably because it appears to be off-topic. Nothing related to 64bit computing on this one- were you involved in one of these cases? You claimed you were involved in some court cases a ways back...

2:52 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The happy truth is that the media and distribution machinery in place for the last 100 years will not work any longer.

Companies that are not willing to find a solution to offer free (read: NOT low-cost) media will die.

Do I have a solution? No. All I know is that if it's easily reproducable, it can and will be distributed for free by someone. Undeniably. Big Media needs to get smarter and quit trying to squeeze the consumer, because that's not where the money is anymore.

3:37 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Too bad no one wants to discuss it

We can discuss whether x86 instruction set is copyrightable.. as an original work of authorship fixed on a tangile medium of expression.

5:11 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

were you involved in one of these cases?

No. But I got involved in some other cases. I told you I can frag lawyers at will. Put them in a hotly contested situation where both sides fight to the last stand. With a mind trained science, our thinking has mathematical rigor. A lawyer's mind is simply too primitive to satisfy rule 11.

5:17 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Svamp said...

Why the hell did you delete my comment? It was factual and non-inflammatory. The only thing I can see was that I took an opposing view to the one you espoused. Don't get in the kitchen if you can't handle the heat, half-wit.

2:38 AM, November 01, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home