From: eD\\/ARd0 F/\\KEn^M3 <cojonesdetoro_at_badeddie.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:17:36 -0500

The differnce is that both those mechanisms where used almost exclusively
for sharing copyrighted material. You could go on either the 'search engine'
or 'napster' and see that 99% of the material was copyrighted. The majority
of Archos users will not be using it for copyright violations and Archos can
probably show that they did not intend it to be used that way.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Maxwell" <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: Archo killing open source....


> David McIntyre wrote:
>
> > Archos can't be held responsible for
> > someone else's use of their hardware to violate copyright
> > laws.
>
> Don't kid yourself. The RIAA sued a college kid for "contributory
> infringement" of copyright because he created a search engine that others
> used to find MP3s (among other files) on a campus network. Look at
Napster.
> They were held responsible for the use of their hardware and software by
> others violating copyright laws. Napster didn't store the MP3s. The MP3s
> didn't pass through Napster's servers. All that Napster did was provide a
> way for people to share files yet they were held responsible when those
> sharing the files broke copyright laws.
>
> Regards,
> Fred Maxwell
Received on 2003-11-07