North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: High court hands big victory to cable
- From: Curtis Doty
- Date: Mon Jun 27 13:27:46 2005
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I find the popular media's coverage on the Supreme Court lacking.
(Although the brevity is convenient.) Here
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html> is the
straight dope on *both* of today's opinions that affect nanoggers.
/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd./
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf>, 545 U. S. ___
R079; No. 04-480; 6/27/05. One who distributes a device with the
object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear
expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement,
going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action,
is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties
using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.
/National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services/
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-277.pdf>, 545 U. S. ___
R080; No. 04-277; 6/27/05. The Federal Communications Commission's
conclusion that broadband cable modem companies are exempt from
mandatory common-carrier regulation under the Communications Act of
1934 is a lawful construction of the Act under /Chevron U. S. A.
Inc./ v. /Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,/ 467 U. S. 837,
and the Administrative Procedure Act.