August 24, 2004
Petit’s response to Grokster, Intent, and Cert
Check out C.E. Petit’s elaboration on his previous posts in response to my post. I’ve written Petit with a few questions to better understand his point before I write up another comment. I know exactly nothing about civil procedure so I’ll defer to those with sufficient expertise here – I would love to hear what others have to say about these issues as well. It still seems strange that, given the standards articulated in Napster, Grokster, and the court of appeals in Aimster, intent is a primary factor in the application of Sony in any of the cases. But that might just be my inability to untangle this complex topic properly, which is all the more reason for you to read Petit’s interesting take.
Also, a couple other links worth reading, along with the appeals court decisions listed in the previous post:
Napster district court decision, Aimster district court decision, Grokster district court decision, EFF amicus criticizing Aimster district court decision
Filed by Derek Slater at 12:44 am under General news
Comments Off on Petit’s response to Grokster, Intent, and Cert
