Grokster 0-9 loss
Read it and weep:
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in copyblight | on June 27, 2005 12:48 PM (Infothought permalink)Held: One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirma- tive steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribu- tion with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses. ...
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined.
"regardless of the device's lawful uses. ..."
I was trying to explain a similar situation to friends of mine (as we here in Canada are facing our own version of the own version of the DMCA being pushed by our Heritage Minister, evidently brainwashed by lobbyists). I was trying to explain that criminalizing lock-breaking rather than the crimes that lock-breaking facilitates is a silly move.
With results like this, I wonder why I even bother.
Grokster is somewhat centralized, so it's basically a reruling of Napster`.