3 ms·

The problem quote appears to be this: "Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/

by Natsu 14y ago

The problem quote appears to be this: "Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended." Perhaps I should note that vicarious liability[1] was invented by the courts, so worrying about whether or not they are creating new policy here seems a bit ironic. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability#Vicarious_liability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability#Vicarious_l...

tptacek 14y ago
The problem quote is taken out of context. Oman is saying that vendors should be required to convince Congress to amend copyright statutes if they expect the courts to defer to them in copyright cases. He is specifically not suggesting that vendors should petition Congress for permission to launch new products. What he's saying is that if your new product harms someone else's rights, the statutes that protect those rights apply. This seems like common sense. Vicarious liability is a basic principle of common law. It was not "invented by the courts". You can be vicariously liable for all sorts of things, not just copyright infringement. People mix this up because they've only heard of vicarious liability in terms of copyright infringement, and then in the context of famous court cases.
- Natsu 14y ago
  You already supplied the context, so I thought I'd put the quote in there with it. It's hard for me to say that common law was not invented by the courts, given that it derives from a lot of old court decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Though it's fair to point out that congress did enact laws to codify the parts of it we wanted. That said, one of the few surviving bits is copyright-related (the "hot news" doctrine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_system_.281789_and_1938.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federa... In fact, I dare say that copyright law is one place the courts like to make up new stuff. See, e.g., Capitol Records, Inc. v Naxos of America Inc. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050412225604578 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050412225604...

by Natsu 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

The problem quote is taken out of context. Oman is saying that vendors should be required to convince Congress to amend copyright statutes if they expect the courts to defer to them in copyright cases. He is specifically not suggesting that vendors should petition Congress for permission to launch new products. What he's saying is that if your new product harms someone else's rights, the statutes that protect those rights apply. This seems like common sense. Vicarious liability is a basic principle of common law. It was not "invented by the courts". You can be vicariously liable for all sorts of things, not just copyright infringement. People mix this up because they've only heard of vicarious liability in terms of copyright infringement, and then in the context of famous court cases.

Natsu 14y ago
You already supplied the context, so I thought I'd put the quote in there with it. It's hard for me to say that common law was not invented by the courts, given that it derives from a lot of old court decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Though it's fair to point out that congress did enact laws to codify the parts of it we wanted. That said, one of the few surviving bits is copyright-related (the "hot news" doctrine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_system_.281789_and_1938.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federa... In fact, I dare say that copyright law is one place the courts like to make up new stuff. See, e.g., Capitol Records, Inc. v Naxos of America Inc. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050412225604578 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050412225604...