Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @ Copyfight LawMeme
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
Later this afternoon, I'll be recording a podcast for IT Conversations on the Grokster decision with Denise Howell of Bag and Baggage and C. E. Petit of Scrivener's Error. Use this post to submit any questions you have about the decision or topics you'd like covered. I can't guarantee that we'll answer all of them, but I'll make an effort to see that we cover the best ones.
Could this decision fairly be regarded as successful in terms of a rearguard action, where the particular defendants lost, but the Big Issues will be refought another day?
2. Larry Blunk on June 27, 2005 01:32 PM writes...
The "news" link on bittorrent.com performs a search for bittorrent on mysearch.com. This leads to lots of sites which are advertising Bittorrent
for downloading music, movies, TV shows, games, etc.
Could the link into mysearch.com land Bittorrent and Bram Cohen in hot water?
With the ruling's reference to business models based significantly on inducing infringement, is the implication that a p2p / network application's creators must be able to show a clear business model based on non-infringing uses?
What if the p2p / network application is developed as an experiment without business motives per se (e.g., Bittorrent, right?)?
Similarly, if a p2p / network experiment intended for non-infringing uses, at some point attracts significant infringing uses, in what ways might the creator be obliged to halt the experiment rather than proceeding with the same intention (of supporting significant non-infringing uses)?
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
1. Seth Finkelstein on June 27, 2005 01:23 PM writes...
Resolved: "It Could Have Been Worse"
Could this decision fairly be regarded as successful in terms of a rearguard action, where the particular defendants lost, but the Big Issues will be refought another day?
Permalink to Comment2. Larry Blunk on June 27, 2005 01:32 PM writes...
The "news" link on bittorrent.com performs a search for bittorrent on mysearch.com. This leads to lots of sites which are advertising Bittorrent
Permalink to Commentfor downloading music, movies, TV shows, games, etc.
Could the link into mysearch.com land Bittorrent and Bram Cohen in hot water?
3. Jay Fienberg on June 27, 2005 02:39 PM writes...
With the ruling's reference to business models based significantly on inducing infringement, is the implication that a p2p / network application's creators must be able to show a clear business model based on non-infringing uses?
What if the p2p / network application is developed as an experiment without business motives per se (e.g., Bittorrent, right?)?
Similarly, if a p2p / network experiment intended for non-infringing uses, at some point attracts significant infringing uses, in what ways might the creator be obliged to halt the experiment rather than proceeding with the same intention (of supporting significant non-infringing uses)?
Permalink to Comment