[81727] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: High court hands big victory to cable
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Doty)
Mon Jun 27 13:27:01 2005
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:26:33 -0700
From: Curtis Doty <Curtis@GreenKey.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050627.072451.15923.243591@webmail13.lax.untd.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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
