I don't have any comments on this, other than I think that the case is interesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hope the betamax precedent is upheld or even expanded.
Basically it says that a company that makes a device that can be used to violate copyright is not liable if the company can show the device has legitimate uses.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, definitely.
One thing that would be nice, but is extremely unlikely to come from this case (though I think some issues in this direction have been mentioned tangentially), is some sort of expansion of fair use to copies that do not derive from the copy you have a license for, but from the original work in question (provided they are also a subset of your copy of the work).