34 ms·

After Napster and Grokster, US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. The courts say it isn’t necessari

After Napster and Grokster, US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. The courts say it isn’t necessarily infringement, but that it can be, and it requires talented judges to figure out which side of the law particular projects fall.

wtallis 6y ago
> US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. What the courts actually said is that enticing can get you secondary liability (contributory and/or vicarious). They maintain that there is a distinction between contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and direct infringement. The DMCA takedown procedure is only defined for direct infringement.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  My comment was to show that the argument “I’m not infringing copyright; I’m just giving directions and tools to do so, and telling them how much fun it is” doesn’t work in US law. From the Grokster summary ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ ): “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution 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.”
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > doesn’t work in US law. It doesn't get you out of all trouble, but it does get you out of charges of direct infringement.