Another fun DMCA case [LWN.net]

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 13, 2005 9:36 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
In reply to: Another fun DMCA case by ksmathers
Parent article: Another fun DMCA case

I've had friends who are professional photographers go around to the local print shops on a regular basis to show the employees their copyrighted work with the dual goal of keeping them from copying the images, and ensuring that they will be held liable if they copy them anyway.

You are kidding, right? This gives a new dimension to the exercise of covering your ears and singing "Lalalala I'm not listening lalalala."

to post comments

Another fun DMCA case

Posted Jul 13, 2005 18:19 UTC (Wed) by ksmathers (guest, #2353) [Link] (1 responses)

That would be hilarious... I can imagine it now.

Plaintiff: Your honor, plaintiff aleges defendant knew or should have known that the works in question were protected by copyright, as established by the documented fact that on at least three occasions plaintiff visited defendant's place of business and showed examples of the works.

Defense: Defendant objects your honor, there is insufficient basis for the fact that defendant saw the works in question. Defendant held his hands to his ears, closed his eyes and said: "La, la, la, la, I'm not listening on each of those three visits until plaintiff had departed...", so you see...

I would see an idiot.

-kls

Wilfully or will-lessly

Posted Jul 13, 2005 19:48 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Well, the example of covering your ears and singing was not to be taken literally. But I can imagine the lines of the defense: defendant was not in the shop / did not look / did not even want to look / did not pay attention / does not remember.

The whole thing looks so ridiculous... Maybe it's the fact that under Spanish law, showing your works around would be completely pointless. While intention is obviously important in penal law (it is what tells apart homicide from murder), it is not for civil liability; this "bad faith" stuff must be something left over from the Reform and that pesky "free will" doctrine. Here you are responsible for your actions in the same degree and fashion regardless of your intention.

IANAL, although I have consulted this specific point with one.