Re: linking and copyright

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> I have trouble following this. The IRI case had little to do
> with vicarious liability (except passing references to it), only
> contributory liability. The court considered two possible direct
> infringers (direct infringement is required for a finding of
> contributory liability): the owners of the three websites and the
> users of the three websites. The court held that there could be
> no contributory infringment predicated on direct infringement by
> the website owners, but that there could be contributory liability
> predicated on direct infringment by users. If you look at the
> headings in the opinion, you will see that in both instances the
> court was considering only contributory liability.

Hi Bob,

Thank you for writing. I appreciate your sharing the work you've done in closely examining many of the points.

You have identified an area that could become the focus of a lot of the argument in the case. Is it a direct infringement under the law of Australia or The Netherlands to post the whole work on websites in those respective countries? If not, without a direct infringement by those websites, can Utah Lighthouse Ministry be viewed as a contributory infringer? In isolation, we might expect the answer to be "no." In the whole context of this case, it is more difficult to predict what the Tenth Circuit might do.

What do you think: if the Tenth Circuit affirms the District Court, will that destroy the web as it exists today?

T. R.

-- 
T. R. Halvorson              mailto:pastel[_at_]lyrea.com
Pastel Programming Co.       http://www.netins.net/showcase/trhalvorson/

Author of:
Law of the Super Searchers: the Online Secrets of Top Legal Researchers
  edited by Reva Basch, Information Today, Inc.

  http://www.netins.net/showcase/trhalvorson/pubs/index.html
_______________________________________________________________________