Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On 5/17/2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's the issue, but you have to be careful how you evaluate it. It is not a question of how it is actually used in any quantitative sense. In the sense that matters -- what it CAN be used for -- its non-infringing uses are exactly as substantial as its infringing uses. Think of a Xerox copier in a library -- its actual use is probably 95% infringing, but it is nonetheless capable of substantial non-infringing uses.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Thu May 18 2000 - 15:46:29 GMT