Quote:
Originally Posted by trevesty
I wasn't confused. That's the text from someone lobbying for that amendment to be added speaking to the Judiciary Committee. In other words, it's very cherry picked by a lobbyist being paid to sway an opinion. The amendment never made it out of the Judiciary Committee ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-...2560+%28108%29)
If those cherry picked cases were relevant, then there's a lot of big, US based sites with very competent counsel who'd be operating very differently.  |
Fixed..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/464/417
"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."