stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 3077
[type] => release
[language] =>
[uid] => 4
[status] => 1
[created] => 1273697994
[changed] => 1273698144
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 1
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 3272
[revision_uid] => 4
[title] => Public Knowledge Statement on LimeWire Case
[body] =>
Background: Earlier today, the U.S. District Court, New York City, ruled that the file-sharing service LimeWire was liable for copyright infringement. The decision is here.
The following statement is attributed to Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge:
“While, we believe the court’s decision is, on the whole, not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case, there are some troubling aspects to the court’s reasoning.
“In determining whether LimeWire induced infringement, the court properly looked at the company’s marketing and communications to users. On the other hand, we are troubled when this court, or any court, tries to determine whether infringement has taken place based on the technical capabilities of a product or service. Our goal, as we and others expressed in an amicus brief, is that technological innovation should be protected.”
The amicus brief is here.
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1273698144
[format] => 1
[name] => Art Brodsky
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-4.png
[data] => a:6:{s:7:"contact";i:0;s:10:"form_token";s:32:"8ccae93257cd5bd08279c4b915d339a4";s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:1;}s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => public-knowledge-statement-limewire-case
[field_issue] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[nid] => 64
[safe] => Array
(
[nid] => 64
[title] => Copyright
[status] => 1
)
[view] =>
Copyright
)
)
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1273698144
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[52] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 52
[vid] => 5
[name] => Copyright
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
[131] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 131
[vid] => 5
[name] => Innovation
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
[49] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 49
[vid] => 5
[name] => Intellectual Property
[description] =>
[weight] => 0
)
[69] => stdClass Object
(
[tid] => 69
[vid] => 5
[name] => P2P
[description] => Peer to Peer
[weight] => 0
)
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
)
[build_mode] => 0
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[print_links] => Array
(
[#weight] => -101
[#suffix] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[field_issue] => Array
(
[#type_name] => release
[#context] => full
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#post_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_field_wrapper_post_render
)
[#weight] => -1
[field] => Array
(
[#description] =>
[items] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[#formatter] => default
[#node] => stdClass Object
*RECURSION*
[#type_name] => release
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#weight] => 0
[#theme] => nodereference_formatter_default
[#item] => Array
(
[nid] => 64
[safe] => Array
(
[nid] => 64
[title] => Copyright
[status] => 1
)
[#delta] => 0
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#theme_used] => 1
[#printed] => 1
[#type] =>
[#value] =>
[#prefix] =>
[#suffix] =>
[#children] => Copyright
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] => Copyright
[#printed] => 1
)
[#single] => 1
[#attributes] => Array
(
)
[#required] =>
[#parents] => Array
(
)
[#tree] =>
[#context] => full
[#page] => 1
[#field_name] => field_issue
[#title] => Issues
[#access] => 1
[#label_display] => above
[#teaser] =>
[#node] => stdClass Object
*RECURSION*
[#type] => content_field
[#children] => Copyright
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] => Background: Earlier today, the U.S. District Court, New York City, ruled that the file-sharing service LimeWire was liable for copyright infringement. The decision is here.
The following statement is attributed to Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge:
“While, we believe the court’s decision is, on the whole, not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case, there are some troubling aspects to the court’s reasoning.
“In determining whether LimeWire induced infringement, the court properly looked at the company’s marketing and communications to users. On the other hand, we are troubled when this court, or any court, tries to determine whether infringement has taken place based on the technical capabilities of a product or service. Our goal, as we and others expressed in an amicus brief, is that technological innovation should be protected.”
The amicus brief is here.
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] =>
Background: Earlier today, the U.S. District Court, New York City, ruled that the file-sharing service LimeWire was liable for copyright infringement. The decision is here.
The following statement is attributed to Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge:
“While, we believe the court’s decision is, on the whole, not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case, there are some troubling aspects to the court’s reasoning.
“In determining whether LimeWire induced infringement, the court properly looked at the company’s marketing and communications to users. On the other hand, we are troubled when this court, or any court, tries to determine whether infringement has taken place based on the technical capabilities of a product or service. Our goal, as we and others expressed in an amicus brief, is that technological innovation should be protected.”
The amicus brief is here.
[#printed] => 1
)
[links] => Array
(
[print_html] => Array
(
[href] => print/3077
[title] => Printer-friendly version
[attributes] => Array
(
[title] => Display a printer-friendly version of this page.
[class] => print-page
[rel] => nofollow
)
[html] =>
[query] =>
)
)
)
