North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: High court hands big victory to cable
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: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.