Re: Re: Patel's order & Distribution rights

I see things differently. I think making a copy available for downloading does constitute a distribution based on the Hotaling case, a point I made in my analysis of the ART Act. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/04/artists_rights.htm. John Ottaviani has also expanded his earlier email about the Patel ruling and why it's not a big deal at
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/05/new_ruling_from.htm.

Eric.

-- 
Eric Goldman
Marquette University Law School
egoldman[_at_]gmail.com
Personal website: http://www.ericgoldman.org
Blogs: http://blog.ericgoldman.org and http://blog.ericgoldman.org/personal/

On 5/17/05, Ethan Ackerman <eackerma[_at_]u.washington.edu> wrote:


> As Kevin, Mike and John each raised in their (probably simultaneous) replies

> to Dan's post - Dan's first several paragraphs about the case are probably

> inaccurate, and may complicate the point he is trying to make.  The "not a

> big deal" order just declines supplemental briefing on the ART Act's impact

> on Napster et al's summary judgment motion re: non-infringing ness of

> maintaining an index (that's my belief :)

> 

> Dan's point that "making available for download" is not= "exclusive

> distribution right" is worth making nonetheless, and it is a distinction of

> some legal importance, especially in international treaties and comparisons

> between various nations' legal regimes.  If you read the rest of his post,

> it contains interesting practical matters (read litigation hurdles) too.

> 

> Susan Crawford has a post (including an internal link to an earlier post)

> about just this issue, and it is also definitely worth reading.

> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/5/12/842418.html

> 

> Ethan Ackerman