|
|
|
|
|
 |
Sunday, April 27, 2003 |
|
"The judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme. [Citations.] Sound policy, as well as history, supports our consistent deference to Congress when major technological innovations alter the market for copyrighted materials. Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accomodate fully the raised permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology.
In a case like this, in which Congress has not plainly marked our course, we must be circumspect in contruing the scope of rights created by a legislative enactment which never calculated such a calculus of interests." [http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000374.html quoting the Supreme Court in the Grokster/Morpheus; via Freedom to Tinker]
So, the court is being conservative and trying not to overstep its perceived bounds. It is in effect trying to pass the buck to Congress, which will happen if the case isn't overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court guidance above makes me less sure it will be overturned on appeal.
The Freedom to Tinker commentary is worth reading; rather than restate the same points here, I suggest you go there. |
 |
 |
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||