Re: High court hands big victory to cable

[Curtis Doty <Curtis () GreenKey net>]

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