waffordable justice
selling out, or buying in?


wi like:

email me with death threats and love letters

site feed
Here
people
the new topography
sixo takes it silly
meaningless brevity
libronaut
normalcy is coursing...
fuzzy sweater
on the moon
bang the fuck out of brooklyn
wheelbarrow
picodulce
hunter s thompson
amusiac
the millions
lost in emotion
the borrowed line
and misadventures of

projects
the dead letter
my fake life

music: recoys mp3's:
shake off your nerve
blizzard of '93

music: news/blogs/bands
realistic records
the walkmen
french kicks
the sharp ease
troubleman
the modern age
slatch
soulstrut
soul sides

politics & war
where is raed ?
talking points memo
drudge
the note
slate
instapundit
command post
c-span
dc indymedia
la indymedia

culture and media
the morning news
daypop

fun
baby bird comic




wArchives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
wFriday, April 01, 2005


Notes on grokster oral arguments
One of the first bits of fallout from Grokster, says Timothy Armstrong, is that you will always be able to rip your CDs legally for use on other devices:

How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement.

MGM’s answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one’s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM’s side of the case who don’t think that example is one bit legal. But they’ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they’ll be barred from challenging “ripping” in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.


posted by Derek at 7:46 AM 2 comments