Re: Re: SCO Linux question

From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor[_at_]yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:45:26 -0400

• "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
  > I'm sure that "own" requires a valid copy, although I don't have any case
  > law handy. One cannot "own" stolen goods. Ownership requires a valid right
  > in the goods (as opposed to mere possession).
  

Goods are stolen if they belong to someone else and were taken without permission. Who owns the copy then? Please answer.

> There is no "innocence" defense for copyright infringement. Further, there
> is no requirement that one "know" that the material is copyrighted. An
> "innocent" user of the software can, indeed, be guilty of infringement.

There is however a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" defense to allusions to copyright infringement which are not grounded in 17 USC 106.

> However, in many cases of innocent infringement, damages are minimal if the
> if the innocent infringer was not at fault. Further, few manufacturers will
> go after individuals who are truly innocent infringers.

Those cases would all involve actual copying, modification, distribution, or public display, though.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com Received on Mon Aug 18 2003 - 18:45:26 GMT