| Archive for Free Pony Theory MP3 blogs forums (MdM, BF, and friends) |
| squashed |
Landmark Legal rulings and Hearing related recordingshe Supreme Court's ruling in Sony v. Universal Studios (aka the Betamax case) is a landmark copyright precedent that has sheltered a wide array of technology innovators from lawsuits at the hands of the entertainment industries. In 1984, the Court held that a company -- in this instance, a VCR manufacturer -- was not liable for creating a technology that some customers may use for copyright infringing purposes, so long as the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. In other words, where a technology has many uses, the public cannot be denied the lawful uses just because some (or many or most) may use the product to infringe copyrights.The Betamax case and its descendants go to a crucial question: will innovators be forced by copyright law to ask permission from entertainment moguls before building new technologies? If Sony had asked permission from Hollywood, the Betamax might never have made it to market (or might have had very different features). It's thanks to the Betamax ruling that the makers of VCRs and every other technology capable of infringing and non-infringing uses (e.g., personal computers, CD burners, the TiVo DVR, Apple's iPod, and Web browsers) can continue to sell their wares without fear of lawsuits from copyright owners. The entertainment industry's lawsuit against peer-to-peer software companies in MGM v. Grokster was a frontal assault on the Betamax ruling. By suing the makers of Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA software products, the entertainment industry aimed to set a precedent to use against other technology companies (P2P and otherwise). http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/ |
| squashed |
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scr...9th&navby=case&no=9856727
B RIAA brought suit to enjoin the manufacture and distribu- tion of the Rio, alleging that the Rio does not meet the requirements for digital audio recording devices under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq. (the "Act"), because it does not employ a Serial Copyright Management System ("SCMS") that sends, receives, and acts upon information about the generation and copyright status of the files that it plays. See id. S 1002(a)(2).2 RIAA also sought payment of the royalties owed by Diamond as the manufac- turer and distributor of a digital audio recording device. See id. S 1003. The district court denied RIAA's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that RIAA's likelihood of success on the merits was mixed and the balance of hardships did not tip in RIAA's favor. See generally Recording Indus. Ass'n of Amer- ica, Inc. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 624 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ("RIAA I"). RIAA brought this appeal. |