In front of a judge, they’re going to have to prove the inducement factor, they can’t just say “people are using this service for illegal means, therefore the service must be pushing them to do so.”

If you’re former legal counsel, why can’t you use proper grammar and mechanics rules in your usage of the English language?

Your English errors are irritating beyond all sanity. If you were a lawyer and I read your response, I wouldn’t hire you to write a letter to a five-year-old. “…who as drafted numerous disclaimers” and a few missing commas and periods show all that I need to know.

It’s amazing who can get through the educational system these days.

Just look at Grokster’s disclaimer

p2p is free and must remain that way – without restrictions of any kind. this includes ratio tracking and registrations.

a person who runs a tracker knows that it costs money and should be willing to pay for it themself. we p2pers do not have bottomless wells of money.

there are many popular and thriving trackers whose owners do pay the costs themselves and do not beg or require people to “help” them pay. it’s your website. YOU PAY FOR IT. one LOKI scam was enough. if you can’t pay the server bills, you have no business running a tracker.

“Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa user
you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.”

This disclaimer on the KaZaA website is 90% of what is needed to survive the new inducement test. The other 10% is making sure you don’t actually tell your customers that you want them to break copyright laws using your service. You don’t have to use filters. You just have to make sure you aren’t promoting the illegal uses of your product or service, and are instead throwing the legal ones out there and promoting them actively.

The ruling does not say “file sharing is illegal” nor does it say “if someone uses your service to an illegal end, you’re liable.” It says “if you induce (Dictionary.com says: “1. To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion”) someone to infringe on a copyright with your product or service, you’re liable for their actions.” This is reasonable because it is possible that your “influence or persuasion” is the reason someone performed the act. Maybe they thought it was okay because you’re promoting the act.

(It’s not like KaZaA Gold making people think they had already paid for the things they downloaded when they bought the software, that’s just plain stupidity and not the same as KaZaA telling them “get Britney Spears songs off our service!”)

If you don’t “move…by influence or persuasion” to infringe upon a copyright, then you’re not liable. eMule, for example, doesn’t even state a purpose other than “a file sharing client.” File sharing isn’t illegal by itself. The users are liable until the provider starts telling the users to perform the act.

I’m going in circles. You get the damned point. I think file sharing software is the greatest thing since the $80 256MB MP3 player, but I still want this to be clear. Quit crying wolf.

Filesharing – The New Economy of Community
http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/06/filesharing-new-economy-of-community.html

Morpheus/Grokster Senate Ruling Explained
http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/06/morpheusgrokster-senate-ruling.html

P2P Vs The 0.01 Percenters
http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/03/p2p-vs-001-percent-ers.html

OH COME OFF IT! Like the entertainment industry’s wolf pack of lawyers couldn’t already come up with clever (and expensive) ways to sue WHOEVER for WHATEVER reason before this ruling. Sure they got some shiny new bullets, but they already had the big guns and plenty of ammo. Come on! Michael Jackson is INNOCENT just like OJ was! It does not matter that much what the law says, statistically those who spend the most money on the case win (at least in the good ol’ USA…).