Back to Blog
Streamcast the parade5/18/2023 ![]() ![]() On the other hand, Justice Souter added, "where an article is ‘good for nothing else’ but infringement. In other words, Justice Souter explained in the Grokster/StreamCast case, contributory liability for the sale of an item that has “substantial lawful as well as unlawful uses” requires "more acute fault than the mere understanding that some. The Supreme Court ruled instead that because VCRs are " capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses," it could not be inferred that Sony intended to induce or encourage infringement "solely on the basis of" the VCR's design or sale. The copyright owners argued that Sony’s intent should be inferred, because it sold VCRs with the knowledge that some buyers would use them to infringe.īut the Supreme Court rejected that argument in Sony. ![]() Such a reading of the Sony case was incorrect, Justice Souter explained, because contributory copyright infringement liability results whenever someone "intentionally induc or encourag direct copyright infringement." In Sony, there was no evidence that Sony intended to promote infringement. The Court's holding was characterized by Justice Stephen Breyer, in a concurring opinion, as one which "add a weapon to the copyright holder's legal arsenal." This is why he may have said that: Grokster and StreamCast may be liable under the Court’s holding, even if their software is " capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses." Some people - Grokster, StreamCast and the lower courts among them - read the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony (Betamax) case as standing for the principle that if a device is " capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses," then its distribution can never give rise to secondary copyright infringement liability, no matter what its distributor knows or intends. They may be, the Supreme Court held, because "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, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties." Supreme Court ruled that Grokster and StreamCast may be liable for infringements committed by their users. In a unanimous decision by Justice David Souter, the U.S. ![]() And in an opinion by Judge Sidney Thomas, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Federal District Judge Stephen Wilson granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. And they won the first two rounds of the lawsuit filed against them by the copyright owners. Their software was downloaded, installed and used by millions of people. StreamCast and Grokster enjoyed success on two other fronts as well. a competing P2P software company - as a defendant. It was sued by movie studios, record companies, songwriters and music publishers, all of whom alleged that StreamCast should be held liable for copyright infringements committed by users of the company's peer-to-peer networking software. the best way to get in the news." StreamCast accomplished that goal. 913, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1001 (2005) ( full-text).Įarly in its business life, StreamCast said that the company's "goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |