If you want to get semantic about it, innocence is an ELEMENT of the
defenses you cite. The thing that is clear is that innocence, alone, is NOT
sufficient to avoid infringement under the law, and that is my point.
Further the term "innocent infringement" is still infringement. It goes to the issue of damages liability, but not to the issue of infringement.
-Bodi
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is no "innocence" defense for copyright infringement.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, there are, but they don't seem applicable to tihs particular
fact
> > > situation.
> > >
> > > See, e.g., section 504(c)(2)(i)-(ii), as well as 405(b) & 406(a).
> >
> > Innocence is NOT a defense to copyright infringement.
>
> It's not a *complete* defense, but it is a defense. Note the wording of
> 401(d), and its reference to 504(c)(2).
>
>
> --
> Terry Carroll | "I say to you that the VCR is to the American
> Santa Clara, CA | film producer and the American public as the
> carroll[_at_]tjc.com | Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
> | Jack Valenti, MPAA President
> Modell delendus est | Testimony before Congress, 1982
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Fri Aug 15 2003 - 09:55:54 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT