Re: [Bug-gne]Copyright infringements

[Bob Dodd]

--- Jimmy Wales <address@hidden> wrote:
[snip]
> Napster only got in legal trouble because they refused to take down
> the offending materials (links to copyrighted songs). 

That's how it started, but read the notes on the judgement again:
Napster lost in the 9th circuit court on both vicarious infringement,
and on contributory infringement:

"...This element can be satisfied by showing either that the
contributory infringer actually knew about the infringing activity, or
that he reasonably should have known given all the facts and
circumstances..."

"...Napster should have known of the infringing activity, based on the
recording industry experience..."

"Second, in order to prevent vicarious infringement, the Ninth Circuit
declared that “Napster…bears the burden of policing its system within
the limits of the system.” Again, the particulars of this command will
be determined by the lower court. Nevertheless, this will almost
certainly require some pro-active monitoring activity by Napster.
Since, in the court’s view, Napster “controls” its users, Napster will
likely be required to take reasonable measures to keep tabs on what
those users are up to, within the bounds of its system architecture. At
a minimum, this will require that Napster pro-actively monitor its
central index to weed out any songs that it knows are not authorized
for sharing. It will also require that Napster continue to terminate
users who share copyrighted works without authorization"

To summarize the above, a content sharing system must work pro-actively
to eliminate copyright infringement. You can't just wait for a takedown
notice. 

/bob


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/