3 ms·
Your own sources demonstrate that the courts have found those who "contribute" to be liable. Strange you didn't quote that part... > Held: One who distribute
by koheripbal 7y ago
Your own sources demonstrate that the courts have found those who "contribute" to be liable. Strange you didn't quote that part...
> Held: 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 7y agoBeing held liable in some form doesn't mean they're being held liable for the same offense. "is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device" does not mean the same thing as "has committed infringement". The courts are saying that you as a contributory infringer have a legal liability relating to the infringement, but you have not actually yourself violated one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner—which is what copyright infringement means.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y agoYou're splitting hairs in a way that doesn't matter. MGM vs. Grokster and subsequent interpretation is clear that inducing copyright infringement is something that a DMCA takedown covers. Indeed, Github links to this ruling in their own documents about DMCA counter notices: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-counter-notice#before-you-start https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi... "Sometimes distributing software can be copyright infringement, if you induce end users to use the software to infringe copyrighted works."
- koheripbal 7y agoGithub didn't get a DMCA takedown. They just got a threatening lawyer's letter. See the other top-level comment about it. Title of post is wrong.