Grokster roundup
It’s out.
Here’s something that sticks out to me, from the EFF’s release:
This decision relies on a new theory of copyright liability that measures whether manufacturers created their wares with the “intent” of inducing consumers to infringe. It means that inventors and entrepreneurs will not only bear the costs of bringing new products to market, but also the costs of lawsuits if consumers start using their products for illegal purposes.
So innovation now must pass the test of ‘if someday some script kiddie can figure out a way …’
Of course the problem with that is some script kiddie is always going to figure out a way around restrictions. All this decision does is create a whole new class of criminals - not only the companies who now must pass muster with the RIAA and MPAA but the users who will have no problem finding ways around the restrictions that will be built into all new products. Anyone want to find out how easy it is to get a Region 1 DVD to play on a Region 2 DVD player?
So much for America being the birthplace of innovation.
Comments from Mary Hodder, Marc Canter and Robert Scoble who say it’s bad. Om Malik says maybe it’s not quite that bad.
Update: Doc Searls suggests Grokster is the Dean Moriarity of the tech world.
Update 2: Ben Hammersley offers a view from abroad.
Technorati Tags: culture, grokster, technology
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment