Mark Cuban to fund Grokster vs. MGM case.

Deadric writes "According to Mark Cuban's latest blog entry, he will help fund the Grokster vs. MGM case, which threatens to destroy the Betamax shield."

Re:Ok, I'll bite...

[TeleoMan]

Mark Cuban was born on July 31, 1958, in the working-class city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and his penchant for business was evident right from the start. As a 12-year-old goofy kid with thick glasses, he sold garbage bags door-to-door. For what it's worth, he did pretty well and learned his first valuable lessons about business.

Guy who rode the boom

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he started Broadcast.com or something and sold it to Yahoo for a gajillion dollars. Then he bought a basketball team and other stuff and laughed when all the people that didn't use their boom money lost it.

its MGM vs. Grokster

[ShinmaWa]

Its MGM v. Grokster, not Grokster v. MGM. The way it currently reads in the summary, it gives the strong impression that Grokster is suing MGM and that Mark Cuban is defending MGM.

Its always Plaintiff v. Defendant, NEVER the other way around.

Re:The "Betamax shield" may not fit anyway.

[cognibrain]

One reason SCOTUS gave Betamax their blessings was that people at the time weren't trying to build libraries of videos...

Not true. From the BetaMax Shield [eff.org] link:

....the uncontroverted survey evidence established that 69% to 75% of all Betamax owners maintain large libraries of off-the-air recordings and that the vast majority of programs in those libraries are copyrighted motion pictures....

Only 9% of users were making legitimate recordings, but the court ruled that these people should not be denied, despite the majority's unlawful behaviour.

Re:its MGM vs. Grokster

[jonny4001]

Actually, in appellate courts, it's almost always listed appellant (party taking the appeal) vs. appellee. Meaning, if the defendant lost at the lower court, he will be listed first.

Betamax is not in Question

[VoxCombo]

Betamax was never questioned in the case.

The original case went to a summary judgement over two laws: contributory infringement [A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (114 F. Supp. 2d)], and vicarious infringement [Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc. (76 F.3d 262)].

In the original case, the judge notes during sumamry judgement that Grokster found a loophole in copyright law, which allowed them to dance around the conditions needed for contributory and vicarious infringement.
The language currently being used for this loophole is "willful blindness".

Re:Guy who rode the boom

[XorNand]

He's done a lot more than that. His original claim to fame was starting a computer consulting firm which he sold to Compuserve for $30M. He's also gotten into some HDTV stuff. More info here [web2con.com].

Re:Mark Cuban

[Ohreally_factor]

He's got a tremendous ego, at least the match of Steve Jobs. He's a bit of a control freak. But he knows how to get things done, and despite his ego, he does have a more human and compassionate side.

This from a friend that worked on The Benefactor, from his personal contact and from things he heard from other people.

Free trade and murder weapons

[handy_vandal]

I don't know about the USA, but in England it has long been held that a manufacturer of a kitchen knife cannot be held responsible for a murder carried out using the knife.

I, too, don't know about the USA ... and I've lived here all my life, mate.

The nut of the Betamax case:

In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that a company was not liable for creating a technology that some customers may use for copyright infringing purposes, so long as the technology is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. In other words, where a technology has many uses, the public cannot be denied the lawful uses just because some (or many or most) may use the product to infringe copyrights.
Source [eff.org]

To my thinking, this means that manufacturers of cute cuddly teddy-bears are not responsible when some crazed maniac uses stuffed animals to perpetrate a murderous asphyxiation spree.

Furthermore: the knife is too goddamned obvious -- any fool can knife a man to death. It takes an innovator to kill with stuffed animals.

-kgj

Mark

[jrwillis]

Living in Texas I've known several people over the years that have known Mr. Cuban. No matter which one you talk to they all say the same thing. He's a realy down to earth guy that hasn't let all the money and power get to him. It seems that if he sees something he likes, he makes it succeed, AND still manages to make money off of it too. So rock on Mark, because you're doing one hell of a job.

Busted

[Doc Ruby]

And he's putting out the Enron movie [imdb.com]. Finally, someone spending Bubble money on something as worthwhile as Aeron chairs!

we punish the tool makers all the time

[captwheeler]

Hand grenades are not legal (and the makers suffer) because we balance the likely use with many factors.

Sudafed is now a behind the counter drug in many states (slowing sales) because end users used it to make meth.

Re:Actually...

[cpt kangarooski]

You know, for someone that's trying to quote from the decision, you're doing an outstandingly craptastic job of it.

What the Court said was:

Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes.

Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses. In order to resolve that question, we need not explore all the different potential uses of the machine and determine whether or not they would constitute infringement. Rather, we need only consider whether on the basis of the facts as found by the District Court a significant number of them would be noninfringing.

Sony v. Universal, 464 US 417, 442 (1984) (emphasis mine).

"Potential" is the key word here. It means, in conjunction with the significance requirement, that it is okay if there are no current significant noninfringing uses so long as the technology could be used in such a way. It doesn't matter whether it is now, or even whether it's likely to be in the future. Only potential, regardless of realization, is required.

Since people could stop using P2P in an infringing manner tomorrow, and start using it in a lawful manner, even if it's unlikely, the Sony test is satisifed.

Do you wish to try and fail miserably again, or have I intellectually beaten you into submission?