[d@DCC] Appeals court affirms Grokster v MGM

[Chris Brand]

Ian! wrote :
>But they got the Internet wrong:
>
>  "In a routine internet transaction, a user will connect via the
>   internet with a website to obtain information or transact business.
>   In computer terms, the personal computer used by the consumer is
>   considered the  client  and the computer that hosts the web page is
>   the  server.   [...]

You missed the sentence before that from your quote :
"...peer-to-peer file sharing differs from typical internet use."

The part you quoted seems to be describing "typical internet use" 
and contrasting it with the peer-to-peer approach. Taken as a whole, 
I'd say they got the description of "typical internet use" spot on. 
Most users don't run servers, only clients. Your points about ISPs 
banning servers reinforce the idea that the court got it exactly right.

Note that I completely agree with you that this is a bad thing, but
it's important to be aware of the world as it actually is rather
than as it should be - otherwise it's tricky to change it into what
it should be :-)

Having now read the whole opinion, I'd say that the court made a very
well-informed decision.

One part that's particularly interesting, BTW, is footnote 9 :
We are mindful that the Seventh Circuit has read Sony's substantial 
noninfringing use standard differently. In Aimster Copyright Litig., 
334 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2003). It determined that an important 
additional factor is how "probable" the noninfringing uses of a product 
are. Id. at 653. The Copyright Owners urge us to adopt the Aimster 
rationale. However, Aimster is premised specifically on a fundamental 
disagreement with Napster I's reading of Sony-Betamax. We are not free 
to reject our own Circuit's binding precedent. [...] Even if we were 
free to do so, we do not read Sony-Betamax's holding as narrowly as 
does the Seventh Circuit.

As I understand US law (which admittedly leaves a lot to be desired),
doesn't this kind of disagreement between circuit courts imply that
at some point the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case to resolve
the disagreement ?

Chris

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca