 GrepLaw |
|
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
File Trading has "Commercial Purpose"
|
|
|
|
posted by macgill
on Friday July 12, @01:06PM
from the porn-leads-the-way dept.
|
|
|
|
|
macgill writes "In the context of a child pornography statute with escalated penalties for defendants making pornography 'for commercial purpose,' the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday in People v Cochran (warning: graphic descriptions) that 'commercial' need not mean for financial profit and that production to trade and increase a defendant's collection is 'for commercial purpose.' The court stated:
As the Attorney General observes, the posting of still photographs and producing of commercial child pornography is powerful evidence that defendant was planning to attract the attention of numerous pedophiles and marketers of child pornography whom he could not reach by other means. Thus, although the profit defendant received may not have been monetary, the evidence showed he
hoped his commercial trading on the Internet would enrich his collection of child pornography.
This may have ramifications for online file trading ranging from providing another argument that file trading of public domain materials is a 'commercially significant use' under the Sony doctrine, to upping pressure on P2P file traders by classifying their allegedly infringing use as 'commercial' and also potentially affecting Audio Home Recording Act (17. U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) immunity (see 17 U.S.C. 1008) for some types of file copying."
|
|
|
|
< Minnesota Supreme Court Vacates Internet Libel Judgment
| Hackers Posted Phony News Stories on USA Today Website >
| |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
File Trading has "Commercial Purpose"
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 2 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 12, @06:21PM (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me the NET (No Electronic Theft) Act dealt with "commercial use" exactly this same way in 1998, with regards to copyrighted software/music/etc. So I think the trading==commercial construction has been applicable to P2P and other file sharing for some time now.
The NET Act was intended to close the so-called "LaMacchia loophole," where people would trade copyrighted works illegally, but never gain any actual money. Check out this article [bsa.org], one among many.
I'm not sure how many cases there are interpreting the NET act, but I would assume there are quite a few, considering it has been around since 1997 or so.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 12, @06:32PM (#118)
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies, it seems that article I linked to was not as good as it appeared at first glance. Here [cybercrime.gov] is a slightly better article. There is lots of stuff on the net about it, and this article contains a citation to the LaMacchia case for anyone to cut-and-paste into westlaw or lexis.
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
 |
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|
