This article, by Chuck Cochems, is an interesting look into the mind of a video game consumer.  This particular consumer is annoyed at video game companies (“corporate fat cats”) for their unending bashing of video game emulation.  He feels that they are simply out to make as much profit as possible, and do not really care about what is right or legal.  However, what starts as just a long rant against the industry morphs into the author’s attempt to find a legitimate, legal defense for video game ROMs.  After discarding all of the traditional defenses, he turns to the Betamax case, and focuses on what he refers to as “the personal use defense.”  Through his reading of the decision, the author comes to the conclusion that ROMs made for personal use could not be infringing.  He also applies this personal use logic to the DMCA, claiming that since a personal use could not possibly be commercial, the DMCA does not apply to copies made by consumers (he also notes catch-22 inherent in the DMCA, that nobody can legally provide the equipment to make a legal backup copy of a video game).  So, there does exist a legal means for a consumer to make backup ROMs of a video game.

While the author makes some valid points, a lot of his logic seems to fall flat.  The Betamax case cannot be applied to space-shifting quite as easily as Cochems might think, even if it only applies to personal use.  And not every personal use is non-infringing; it is clearly possible to infringe on someone’s copyright without selling or trading the infringement.  Also, he simply waves the DMCA away with a wand and the magical words “personal use.”  This is an unlikely scenario at best, and downright wrong at worst.  However, the true power of this article is to demonstrate how important this issue is for a significant segment of consumers.  It is clear while reading this article that Cochems cares passionately about video game emulation, if only on an ethical level.  He is “sick and tired” of the attempts by the video game industry to stamp out emulation, and he is looking for any legitimate argument to ensure the legality of video game ROMs.  The video game industry wants to avoid creating a consumer base that predominantly resembles Cochems.  Otherwise, they could find themselves in the same position as the RIAA.

This article is written by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit interest group that “seeks to promote free expression, privacy, and individual liberty on the open, decentralized internet.” This document “outlines the limits on the scope of secondary copyright liability,” looking at the Grokster decision, the landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984), and patent law precedents relating to inducement liability. The goal of this investigation is to make sure that "secondary liability for copyright infringement does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having lawful promise.’” The Grokster case and the Sony decision can obviously be looked at be looked at individually, but this article does a nice job of synthesizing the information and explaining how they impact each other.

The article focuses on the new implications of the “inducement test,” what repercussions the situation has for the Sony rule and what this all means for vicarious liability. The article focuses on one key difference in clarification between the Grokster and Sony decisions. The language in the Grokster decisions "suggests that the Sony test focuses on 'substantial' non-infringing uses, not 'commercially significant' non-infringing uses." With Grokster, the emphasis was certainly placed on the commerical uses of the site. Monetary gains became one of the most significant factors of the case, not just ethical or legal implications. Certainly the internet is just as much a business as any other commerical frontier in the world, but more and more - especially illustrated with the Grokster decision - financial viability is the determining legal decision making. For example, today YouTube is currently seen as protected by the safe harbor provison, although some of the content being posted on YouTube today was possibly (or probably) also availible on Grokster. YouTube has been able to position itself not only in a safe harbor in a legal sense, but also in a financial sense by teaming up with companies who own many of the copyrighted works that are being infringed.

Of course the Sony case was also motivated by money, but more than ever before the current world of the web and the sites that are allowed to function within its borders are completely a function of their monetary potential for copyright holders. Grokster was taken to court because it posed a threat to the financial success of copyright holders. YouTube poses a similar threat as well, but thus far has been able to keep in partnership with the people who would be taking them to court in the first place.