Grokster

I have great concern over bans of dual-use goods or services unless there are specific intents to be a part of the criminal side (i.e. as in Grokster).

The Volokh Conspiracy » Businesses That Provide Goods or Services That Can Be Used Either Criminally or Lawfully 2010

Menell: Grokster is braindead because the Court was so concerned about avoiding Sony.

Archive 2009-01-01 Rebecca Tushnet 2009

Grokster is not even down for the count, let alone out of business.

Grokster ruling’s chilling effect 2005

The Hollywood Reporter continues, After Grokster, we were contacted by quite a few people with exotic technologies who might be considered out of the mainstream even of P2Ps who said they want to talk to us because they are saying Grokster is a problem for them.

Bainwol and Glickman 2005

Should the parties in Grokster not reach a settlement, the case, now remanded to a lower court for more fact finding, will likely result in further questions that appeals courts, including perhaps the Supreme Court, will need to answer.

eDonkey throws in the towel 2005

In fact, say people close to the talks, Grokster is negotiating a settlement with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

Mashboxx to swallow Grokster? 2005

Grokster falls to the RIAA p2p news/p2pnet: Grokster is the latest of the formerly independent file sharing companies to agree to “stop distributing software that allows users to copy songs without permission as part of a settlement with the recording industry”.

Grokster falls to the RIAA 2005

Perhaps the most disconcerting argument in the Court ` s decision and a good example of the massive confusion facing technology companies in the wake of Grokster is one of the Court ` s examples that supposedly evidences the respondents ` intent to induce:

eDonkey throws in the towel 2005

Their main criticism of Grokster is for its "engineered ignorance of use and content" (p. 9; note that the quoted phrase is a reasonable definition of the end-to-end principle, which underlies much of the Internet's design), for failing to register its users and monitor their activities (e.g., p. 13), for failing to limit itself to sharing only MP3 files as Napster did (really! p. 17), and for "engineer [ing] anonymous, decentralized, unsupervised, and unfiltered networks" (p. 18).

Boing Boing: January 23, 2005 - January 29, 2005 Archives 2005

Grokster ruling’s chilling effect p2pnet. net News View: - Unnerved by imprecise ruling in Grokster vs MGM, venture capitalists are abandoning investments in file sharing technologies for “more sedate arenas,” says the Guardian Unlimited.

Grokster ruling’s chilling effect 2005