Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]

[Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>]

Actually, civil copyright infringement liability doesn't turn on
knowledge. You can be an infringer even if you don't know.

Criminal copyright infringement requires a guilty mental state, so *that*
you have to know.


>    From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>
> 
>    i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
>    truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
>    copyrighted material?
> 
> Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case
> in the 50's that I never remember the name of.  Mike G., can you help
> me out on this one?
> 
> These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and
> obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to
> be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic
> principle of these.  Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you
> don't, you're not.  This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross
> simplification of a long chain of reasoning.
> 
>    what
>    exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
> 
> The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement
> or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then
> a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.
> 
>    >    clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
>    >    contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
>    >    Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
>    >    Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
>    >    1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).
> 
>    what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
>    intimidation tactics? 
> 
> I have personal experience with the first case.  It was a local BBS
> run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after
> the seizure.  (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.)
> I believe the case settled out of court.  There were court documents
> approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or
> not.  I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin
> for one-sided).  Mike, again?  Other legal folk?
> 
> I know nothing about the second one.
> 
>    nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
>    instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
>    that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. 
> 
> The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't.
> 
> Eric
>