On 6/4/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
in the case where you know about the file, you're still liable for contributory infringement.
Before someone takes *that* the wrong way, I'm talking about the person
who
runs the server and knows about the file, not *everyone* who knows
about the
file.
It's a matter of knowing about the infringement; not just knowing about the file.
Specifically, it requires "knowledge of the infringing activity", which seems to me to be different from "knowledge that the activity is infringing". But now we're getting way beyond my initial statement, and into the realm of hypotheticals which are far too poorly defined. If you can find some material on exactly what constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of contributory copyright infringement, I would be interested in it, though.
How can you possibly have knowledge of infringing activity when you don't know that the material is infringing? The former is necessarily a precondition of the latter.
I don't understand the question. If you know about the activity, but aren't sure if it's infringing, then you have knowledge of the infringing activity but don't know that the material is infringing. I'm kind of just restating the question though, so I'm not sure if I've explained myself.
I can easily admit that many of the terms
are poorly defined, but in poorly defined laws the benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.
I'd be happy to see any precedents in the matter. Until then I can only speculate.
A good place to start for understanding what constitutes knowledge of
infringement is the list of things that must appear in a takedown order.
I'm not talking about the DMCA, though.
For contributory infringements it may be sufficient to show that
theres has already been a case filed against the original infringer. There are no doubt other criteria, but they would need to be based on solid evidence, and not on shaky presumptioins.. Knowledge also needs to make allowance for plausible defences, including fair use, the merger principle, and waiver of rights.
Are you talking here about the standard under the DMCA (OCILLA), or the standard for contributory copyright infringement? Again, two completely different things. Like I said, we're probably getting way too hypothetical and not properly defining situations here.
Anthony