Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)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 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.
A good place to start for understanding what constitutes knowledge of
infringement is the list of things that must appear in a takedown
order. 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.
Ec