5 ms·

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users. ...in much the same way as Grokster and Napster, DMCA notwithstanding.
- jamespo 11y ago
  Grokster & Napster responded to DMCA takedowns promptly did they?
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    In which case was that why they lost?
- lmm 11y ago
  Post-DMCA it became a requirement to demonstrate that they were supporting copyright infringement (e.g. by showing screenshots of searching for and downloading songs that were not licensed for distribution that way in their marketing material) - see the Limewire case and the ongoing MegaUpload saga.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    20th century BBS operators wore eye patches and drank rum and sailed the seas on wooden ships. The DMCA would not have saved them, so pre-DMCA cases where they lost tell you very little about what would happen to Google or Verizon without the DMCA.
mindslight 11y ago
(Well, a BBS is more akin to a website, but the shifted argument is still valid if one thinks "web 2.0" is a good thing. And MAPHIA seems irrelevant due to its significant findings of editorial control) "Frena" wasn't necessarily a correct decision, especially given the extreme power imbalance between parties. Would the same decision be reached if the defendant had been a well capitalized business? Similarly, the modern inverse of an individual file sharer trying to hide behind the DMCA likely wouldn't fly. The decision certainly goes against what one would expect from general legal principles, but I suppose that's inevitable in the face of cancer like intent-free criminality. The same reasoning would have indicted him for a cd-r tossed onto his lawn.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users. ...in much the same way as Grokster and Napster, DMCA notwithstanding.

jamespo 11y ago
Grokster & Napster responded to DMCA takedowns promptly did they?
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  In which case was that why they lost?
lmm 11y ago
Post-DMCA it became a requirement to demonstrate that they were supporting copyright infringement (e.g. by showing screenshots of searching for and downloading songs that were not licensed for distribution that way in their marketing material) - see the Limewire case and the ongoing MegaUpload saga.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  20th century BBS operators wore eye patches and drank rum and sailed the seas on wooden ships. The DMCA would not have saved them, so pre-DMCA cases where they lost tell you very little about what would happen to Google or Verizon without the DMCA.

mindslight 11y ago

(Well, a BBS is more akin to a website, but the shifted argument is still valid if one thinks "web 2.0" is a good thing. And MAPHIA seems irrelevant due to its significant findings of editorial control) "Frena" wasn't necessarily a correct decision, especially given the extreme power imbalance between parties. Would the same decision be reached if the defendant had been a well capitalized business? Similarly, the modern inverse of an individual file sharer trying to hide behind the DMCA likely wouldn't fly. The decision certainly goes against what one would expect from general legal principles, but I suppose that's inevitable in the face of cancer like intent-free criminality. The same reasoning would have indicted him for a cd-r tossed onto his lawn.