If P2P companies can be held liable for pirate ativity that occurs using their software, then why can't eBay be liable too ?
So far the lower courts have upheld the DMCA in holding providers such as eBay, AOl etc., harmless for the acts of their users.
But the RIAA want just the opposite result.
Who wins when the "case" is taken to Congress to change the DMCA by lobbysts of Disney, RIAA, Motion picture companies ?
Will the Congress carve out a special niche law just for P2P software makers ? AOL and eBay can't function if they are held liable for the actions of their users.
It will beinteresting to see this played our. The music companies have to do something.
posted on February 2, 2004 10:11:44 AM
eBay should be held responsible.... it is no different than them upholding claims of copy right infringement "so and so is using my pictures and/or description"...
Protect one they should be made to protect the other... just look at some DVD's on eBay right now... any ad that that says your DVD player must be able to use DVD r-/+ is nothing more than someone selling copies... no matter what the cover art looks like...
posted on February 2, 2004 10:39:03 AM
But the DMCA holds eBay harmless for users' piracy activities. AOL and all the other ISPs went to Congress and had Congress pass the clauses of the DMCA that specifically hold them harmless. You have to send eBay or any other ISP a sworn stement of ownership of the material to get it taken down.
The P2P software poses a little different situation, but the same principle should apply.
posted on February 2, 2004 11:06:10 AM
I don't think that RIAA is going to be successful in their bid. No service can be held responsible for what their users have installed on their computer. That would be like holding the California Highway Department responsible for drug trafficing because their roadways provided a pathway for dealers who carried drugs in their car.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
