Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: High court hands big victory to cable

  • From: Kuhtz, Christian
  • Date: Mon Jun 27 15:37:17 2005



This opinion is actually a fascinating read, particularly the dissent,
and if you have the time you should definitely read all 59 pages of the
PDF.

Thanks,
Christian
(speaking - as always - expressly not for my employer, and rather only
for myself)


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Curtis Doty
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:27 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: High court hands big victory to cable


Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>Via CNN/Money:
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/broadband_ruling/index.htm
>  
>

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. ___

(2005)

    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. ___

(2005)

    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.


../C

*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 162





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.