Comments on: RIAA takes a pop at p2p developers http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/08/07/riaa-takes-a-pop-at-p2p-developers/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:34:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/08/07/riaa-takes-a-pop-at-p2p-developers/#comment-1468 Geeklawyer Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:12:40 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=481#comment-1468 No, this issue is all a follow on to the Grokster judgement which was hoped to address the Sony case in relation to file sharing technology. As for code & free speech: one of the issues is, in effect, does free speech entitle you to create instruments of fraud? You may be entitled to publish code but are you allowed to use it to incite copyright infringement, yada yada. No, this issue is all a follow on to the Grokster judgement which was hoped to address the Sony case in relation to file sharing technology.

As for code & free speech: one of the issues is, in effect, does free speech entitle you to create instruments of fraud? You may be entitled to publish code but are you allowed to use it to incite copyright infringement, yada yada.

]]> By: MS http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2006/08/07/riaa-takes-a-pop-at-p2p-developers/#comment-1467 MS Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:52:52 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=481#comment-1467 Hasn't this already been settled? I thought dual use technologies were ruled to be legal in the Sony case? ...and wasn't code ruled to be free speech and thus falling within the protective remit of the 1st amendment? Hasn’t this already been settled? I thought dual use technologies were ruled to be legal in the Sony case?

…and wasn’t code ruled to be free speech and thus falling within the protective remit of the 1st amendment?

]]>