[Fwd: Re: High court hands big victory to cable]

[Mark Foster]

Funny that this should be mentioned, taken from NANOG...

PS, pages 58 and 59 of the referenced PDF (for the dissent) are
apparently quite good reading.

Mark.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: High court hands big victory to cable
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:26:33 -0700

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