3 ms·
I’m sure the argument is that Napster- and Grokster-style contributory infringement is infringement. I have a hard time imagining source code enticing people to
by maxlybbert 6y ago
I’m sure the argument is that Napster- and Grokster-style contributory infringement is infringement. I have a hard time imagining source code enticing people to infringe copyright, but if the program encourages infringement, I suppose the repository is a logical target.
I won’t predict whether the contributory infringement argument will win. I’m sure the law was written with direct infringement in mind, but I don’t think that rules out creative interpretations by itself.
I believe the clearest approach would be for the MPA to not bother with a DMCA notice, and just sue the project directly. But if you can get what you want on the cheap, why not try? And I’m not sure a lawsuit against the project would do much good: even assuming the MPA were to get an injunction, they’d need to play whack-a-mole to track down anybody using the PopCornTime code.
- KenoFischer 6y agoRight, I concur with the reasoning that contributory infringement could be argued against the developers, but I think the interesting questions is whether that reasoning can be extended to the "material" under the takedown section - particularly as written. If so that seems like the kinds of thing that could get ugly very quickly. E.g. are instructions on how to google for infringing material suddenly infringing?
- maxlybbert 6y agoI understood that DMCA notice/counternotice procedure was meant to provide a streamlined process for simple cases, which could be migrated to an actual court if necessary. I don’t like seeing it stretched to cover cases that aren’t so simple.
- notechback 6y agoMaybe their first aim is also to make it less accessible and reduce its use.