How Turtl has no idea when you're sharing copyrighted stuff

Re:How Turtl has no idea when you're sharing copyrighted stuff by khafra on Monday March 31, 2014 @10:52AM (#7501782)

> "Read between the lines" - give me a break. I hope that's not everyone's first perspective when they read positions as such.

He wasn't talking about everyone's first perspective. He was talking about a judge in a copyright infringement lawsuit's final perspective.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Turtl has no idea when you're sharing copyrighted stuff by einhverfr on Tuesday April 01, 2014 @01:49AM (#7506397)

This is true but the opinion in MGM v. Grokster is pretty clear:

You risk being held liable for contributory infringement if you advertise infringement as a possible use for your product.

There really is no other way to read that case, and despite technical differences between Ginsberg (really, really bad) and Breyer (really, really good), all 9 justices on the court agreed with that basic idea. Advertise infringing uses? Get held liable. What this means is one really should shy away from saying things that may be taken as advertising infringing uses.

You can read the whole thing at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html

Please do so.

[ Parent | on HN ]