3 ms·
They need to make the argument because the defendant is not a licensee. Their theory is that defendant has knowingly used a Chinese subcontractor that uses pria
by macmac 10y ago
They need to make the argument because the defendant is not a licensee. Their theory is that defendant has knowingly used a Chinese subcontractor that uses priate software to produce the output that they sell to their customers. So they go with contribution to copyright infringement and the output being a derivative work and the defendant's use (copying) therefore a violation of copyright.
- myrandomcomment 10y agoAnd that's the real issue. The CAD company did suffer harm, however the idea of the output being copyright is wrong but it looks like that was the only angle they could go. Our system is pretty screwed up. I wonder if there chould be a case for a "corrupt practices act". If you can prove they knowingly outsourced to a company they knew was using pirated software how is that different then working through let's say a channel partner that pays bribes? I deal with partners all the time and under US law if I knowing I am doing business through a 3rd party that paid a bribe (my hands never touched it) I can be prosecuted because I knew.
- LoSboccacc 10y agoIirc the whole chain needs to be licensed and copyright transfered, that's to avoid issues with people laundering pirated items with a legit contract knowingly. So the issue remains if they knew the wendir hadn't a license - that'd be necessary to know where to assign damages, but still they would not be able to use the output, as created without a license to begin with. If the vendor had not a license to work with the software the output has been illegaly obtained, while claiming copyright on the output may not stick claiming a royalty along punitive damages is not that far fetched.