sigh.

Posted Oct 2, 2003 12:16 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]

"he had to go to a notary to prove WHAT he sent to them - it could be a book or a piece of toilet paper ;) Nevertheless it's up to the court how they assess the "proofs""

I have been advised that in the absence of previous criminal convictions for dishonesty, or some other reason to believe that one is lying, one's own statement that the letter was posted is generally accepted as sufficient proof in a court. Sending it registered allows you to also prove that it was actually received.

In general, if you say you posted a letter and show proof of receipt, there isn't "reasonable doubt" that you actually included what you said you included in the envelope.

"just because their[sic] is a letter where somebody is claiming one thing or another... - under which circumstances has Amazon to come to the conclusion that they HAVE to stop the product?

Did you read the Act to which I referred? It is an offence to sell, distribute, etc. an article if it is, and if you know or have reason to believe that is it an infringing copy of a copyright work.

Once a retailer is given this reason to believe, they need to make their own decision about whether it is or is not an 'infringing copy'. They may of course decide, even given overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is not an 'infringing copy', and/or that they wish to take the risk of continuing to sell these products.

If and when it is proven in a court of law that the product in question is in fact infringing, which the WRT54G clearly is in its current form since it contains neither source nor a written offer of source, then it can also be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the retailer had reason to believe this fact, and hence were criminally liable.