Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
> >
> > The rewrite potential may very well be possible, but that's not where
> > we are right now. Right now, in current form, it is expressly a tool
> > made to make unauthorized reproductions of digital music files.
>
> Well, it's a tool for making reproductions of digital music files,
> anyway. As has been mentioned, that includes authorized reproductions
> of music files.

I stand corrected in the following sense: it is expressly a tool made to make reproductions of digital music files, and that ability is not limited to unauthorized reproductions.

> > What it could be is irrevelant until such a possibility becomes
> > reality. Until such time as the application has a primary function
> > of noninfringing use, I still maintain my position.
>
> That's fine for your position, but you should be aware that your
> position is not that of the courts, and isn't particularly helpful
> in determining whether Napster ought to be found liable. The actual
> test for contributory infringement is whether the item has substantial
> non-infringing uses, which is a significantly lower threshhold than
> the one you propose.

As to whether my position is the same as the opinion of the courts, that remains to be seen. As you sugggest, the test for contributory infringement is whether the item has *substantial* non-infringing uses. As it exists today, it is my belief that the item does not have *substantial* non-infringing uses. Does it have some? Sure. But enough to deem them substantial? In my opinion, no. Am I right? Don't know -- remains to be seen. But it would seem from the attached link that the concerns that I have are shared. See: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/cyber/cyberlaw/12law.html

Regards,
Marty

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Wed May 17 2000 - 13:22:20 GMT