Re: Re: Intent to display a work

From: Brock Shinen <brock[_at_]frenzellaw.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:19:53 -0400

If the elements of proof for copyright infringement are (1) valid copyrights, and (2) copying, how can it be that your lack of knowledge shows that you didn't copy? A major component of vicarious infringement, for instance, is lack of knowledge. Courts find infringement in many circumstances where actual knowledge is not present.

I don't believe lack of knowledge is a defense to copyright infringement. It may reduce damages, but it doesn't negate a finding of infringement.

Access may be the only plausible argument. If the person never had access (which may be argued by way of knowledge), then that could be a defense.

Brock

On 8/1/03 9:10 AM, "Roy Murphy" <murphy[_at_]panix.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 5:28PM -0500, Dan Lester wrote:

>> Finally, having played with several pieces of P2P software, they've all
>> made it abundantly clear that you're sharing files, not just "getting"
>> them from someone else.  They all assume a default directory for
>> sharing, but you can always turn off sharing, point to a different
>> directory, etc.  Ignorance would be VERY hard to claim with a straight
>> face.

>
> That depends on the circumstances. At least some people caught up in the
> latest round of RIAA subpoenas claim that a minor resident of the house
> installed the software and they had no knoledge that it was there and
> sharing files prior to the subponea. Other, less technically inclined
> persons might not understand the concept of a sharing directory or might
> think it's the place that files others have shared with you go. I can
> imagine a person who bought or adopted someone's castoff machine might
> not know the software was there sharing files.
>
> Some years ago, I was waiting for my car to be serviced at the
> dealership and I was told I could wait in an unusued office. I noticed
> that the computer sitting there had Napster running. I doubt the owner
> of the dealership knew it was there and that it exposed his business to
> liability.

- Received on Fri Aug 01 2003 - 22:19:53 GMT