I’m wondering whether this is enough of a conflict for the SC to take it up.

Posner in Aimster required an economic substantiallity in the noninfringing use. Thomas in Grokster required technical substantiality in the noninfringing use. Even under Posner’s standard, Grokster would probably win here, and, with Induce in the congressional oven, I’m forced to wonder whether the SC would even take this case.

The only reason I fear they would take it is to simply obliterate Sony v. Universal itself, which I doubt they would want to do.

-doug

Maybe bemoaning isn’t quite the right word – apologies if it isn’t. I definitely agree that the point is worth adding to the discussion – that’s why I said I agree with it. I was just making sure people remembered that this is meaningful, regardless of INDUCE. That is, to only say, “It’s all up to Congress anyway” misses some points about this case.

Derek, I’m not bemoaning the decision. But since I’d made an observation long ago about getting a similar law to the NET act, I wanted to revisit that observation in this context given the connection to the INDUCE Act. It seemed something worth adding to the overall commentary, besides the well-deserved congradulations.