Gun Makers Worthy Of Protection That Tech Isn't
from the hypocrisy-in-action dept
Sea Monkey Rodeo points out that President Bush's spokesman says "The president believes that the manufacturer of a legal product should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of that product by others. We look at it from a standpoint of stopping lawsuit abuse." Unfortunately he isn't referring to the administration's views of the Supreme Court's Grokster decision, but rather legislation to protect gun manufacturers that's before the Senate.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
pretty simple
Guns = Money made and protected under bill of rights.
Grokster = Money lost.
There really isn't even a need to compare the fact that both have their legitimate uses. It simply doesn't matter in a country like this. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pretty simple
If gun manufacturers are promoting their guns saying "Hey you can rob store and kill people with this beauty" then they'd be liable too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pretty simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pretty simple
It's completely different, and a reading of the actual court opinion will perhaps draw some fresh conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pretty simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pretty simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually that works fine...
For example... Desert Eagles with spinner hubcap inspired bling on the loading mechanism... bullets that literaly have peoples names on them... Colt product doing a tie with Miller beer... Colt 45's and Colt .45's!
USvGrok wasn't a win for anti sharing... unless a developer goes around saying things like "I think I should write software to scew the RIAA" and then they DO... well... stupidity SHOULD be punished anyway... (even if we all agree the rat bastards deserve it)
Rather than whining it to death we should look at it as an OPPURTUNITY... Use the laws we already have... Namely gun laws, it's a great parallel... we shalt have the right to write and run software...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cuts both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding Inducement
One of the things that I omitted from the post was a note regarding the fact that the inducement/promotion element of the Grokster decision immediately reminded me of the Navegar lawsuit some years ago.
Navegar, the manufacturer of the TEC9, ran ads that promoted the weapon's "fingerprint resistant" coating and large capacity magazine; while a fair number of people felt that this constituted marketing to an audience that was using the products illegally, the courts did not agree. (Google: Navegar lawsuit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding Inducement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]