Post Grokster
Ein sehr lesenswertes Statement von Sam Yagan, das er gestern morgen bei einem “Protecting Copyright and Innovation in a Post-Grokster World” Hearing in Washington gegeben hat.
The court specifically cites that Grokster’s marketing to “former Napster users indicates a principal, if not exclusive intent to bring about infringement.” Is this really proof of intent to induce infringement? Does this mean that every advertiser that has advertised in the eDonkey software also has a similar intent? I should hope not, because last summer the campaigns of both President Bush and Senator Kerry ran advertisements on eDonkey. Were they really both courting the “swing infringement vote” or could they have had some other “intent?”
eDonkey Chief Blasts Litigators In Senate Testimony
Aus dem P2P Business allerdings zieht sich Yagan definitiv zurück.
