RE: High court hands big victory to cable
This opinion is actually a fascinating read, particularly the dissent, and if you have the time you should definitely read all 59 pages of the PDF. Thanks, Christian (speaking - as always - expressly not for my employer, and rather only for myself) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Doty Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 1:27 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: High court hands big victory to cable Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Via CNN/Money:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/broadband_ruling/index.htm
I find the popular media's coverage on the Supreme Court lacking. (Although the brevity is convenient.) Here <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html> is the straight dope on *both* of today's opinions that affect nanoggers. /Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd./ <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf>, 545 U. S. ___ (2005) R079; No. 04-480; 6/27/05. One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses. /National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services/ <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-277.pdf>, 545 U. S. ___ (2005) R080; No. 04-277; 6/27/05. The Federal Communications Commission's conclusion that broadband cable modem companies are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 is a lawful construction of the Act under /Chevron U. S. A. Inc./ v. /Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,/ 467 U. S. 837, and the Administrative Procedure Act. ../C ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 162
On 6/27/05, Kuhtz, Christian <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com> wrote:
This opinion is actually a fascinating read, particularly the dissent, and if you have the time you should definitely read all 59 pages of the PDF.
Scalia's pizza delivery analogy is worth the download alone (page 58 & 59) aaron.glenn
participants (2)
-
Aaron Glenn
-
Kuhtz, Christian