[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
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 <[email protected]>
> 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.
> 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.