|
Typohiles on the Supreme Court Decision
In July 2005, typophiles react to a supreme court decision: We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. The best reactions: - Bert Vanderveen: Are the people that sell FontLab liable if someone uses that program to make a copy of a font under a slightly different name and sells it for profit? Is Apple liable if I use Garageband to mix a couple existing numbers and some notes of myself into a new song that scores big and makes me a bundle (I wish)? Are all producers of blank media liable for the damage done to record and film companies because their products are mostly used to make copies of copyrighted media and they promote that (Is it or is it Maxell?)? The Supreme Court is just what it is: a bunch of old out of time geezers that have been blindsided by some overpaid smartass lawyers and who have no idea of what the Internet has become: a repository of free bytes. My guess is that Grokster cs have by now moved their operations to other parts of this world where the long arm of US Law won't be able to reach them. So who won what?
- Aluminum: Should the phone company be responsible for allowing people to commit fraud via the phone?
- Christian Robertson: The worst pirating app isn't Bittorrent, or Napster, its TCIP. Maybe the Supremes should take a look at Cisco, and rule against some of their routers. They are facilitating this horrible problem too. Whos responsible for this &@$# internet thing anyway? Lets get that guy.
|
EXTERNAL LINKS
Typohiles on the Supreme Court Decision
MyFonts search
Monotype search
Fontspring search
Google search
INTERNAL LINKS
David and Goliath ⦿
|
