4 ms·

I wonder does making a minor mistake in attribution really count as "wilful infringement"? As a layman, I would expect that any reasonable attempts to comply wi

I wonder does making a minor mistake in attribution really count as "wilful infringement"? As a layman, I would expect that any reasonable attempts to comply with license requirements should indicate that infringement was accidental. Sure, if it's a large company whose legal advisor instructs do x to avoid maximum penalty, with intention to infringe the copyright, that should probably still count as wilful infringement.

toyg 3y ago
Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere. Sadly, depending on the specific country it happens in, a defendant might still have to pay significant legal fees just to reach a point where the judge can tell trolls to go away. And that's where the business model kicks in: the trolls will offer to go away on their own if defendant pays them $LikelyLegalFees / 2, making it cheaper than the alternative. It's like the Kevin Bridges bus-stop joke: https://youtu.be/8W_k7ybGBDg https://youtu.be/8W_k7ybGBDg
- EasyMark 3y ago
  THe US Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would like to have a word with you. Particularly the past decade or so they have been truly awful when considering cases; ignoring precedence, common sense, democracy, and practicality whenever possible.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Veelox 3y ago
      When the decision is 9-0 and involves Trump it's highly unlikely they created their own meaning.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        The majority decided to answer a question not part of the case, namely that Congress must act to invoke 14.3. That determination means that the entire amendment is not self-executing. They leaned on the 14.5 for this, though a strict reading would be that the amendment is worded as self-executing with no stipulations and 14.5 only offers Congress an avenue to act for a universal answer to, in this case, the question of the eligibility disability. The ruling justifies this by saying that it seems nun reasonable for states to have the power of deeming a federal candidate ineligible. That meaning is not stipulated at all in the amendment, and goes in the face of both states' authority to run the election process and states' duty to enforce federal law (in this case the ineligibility of a candidate). The amendment does not stipulate that the power to enforce sits only with Congress, the bench made this up. The amendment does not limit the authority to enforce the amendment only with the federal government, they made this up. Nowhere in the amendment is it written as non self-executing, to the contrary 14.3 specifically provides a way for Congress to undo the intelligibility after the fact.
    - thsksbd 3y ago
      A 9-0 victory including Obama and Biden's appointees? The gist of CO argument being that the state executive can unilaterally declare an event an insurrection (there has been no finding to date in court) thus blocking a candidate for federal office? The liberal justices threw this in the trash because they recognize how dangerous this is. After all, imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot [1] in 2020 were declared an insurrectionist by red-leaning states and barred from office? [1] Which were far more destructive and deadly than Jan 6 and did target federal buildings
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        > The gist of CO argument being that the state executive can unilaterally declare an event an insurrection (there has been no finding to date in court) thus blocking a candidate for federal office? The state executive didn't act unilaterally to declare it an insurrection. Though even if they had, I don't believe the constitution includes a definition of an insurrection or the process for how it is determined. > The liberal justices threw this in the trash because they recognize how dangerous this is. A presumed dangerous outcome should have no bearing on how the amendment is interpreted as written. Doing so moves the decision out of the realm of legal question and makes it political. Further, setting a precedent for "the ends justify the means" seems extremely dangerous itself. > After all, imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot [1] in 2020 were declared an insurrectionist by red-leaning states and barred from office? That's definitely an interesting question, though one that wasn't part of this case so the court didn't have to decide it. Its worth noting that the intelligibility in 14.3 is specific to those who already took an oath of office. Only those taking part in or supporting the riots and previously took an oath of office would be at risk.
        dmoy 3y ago
        > That's definitely an interesting question, though one that wasn't part of this case so the court didn't have to decide it. Didn't they literally consider hypothetical future impact during the oral for this case? E.g. page 84 where Roberts asked about something like this.
  - toyg 3y ago
    That's why I said "most honest judges", perfection is not of this world. I reckon that even just the fact that you're familiar with one specific set of people for being awkward, indicates that the overwhelming majority of other judges are not - otherwise the US 5th Circuit wouldn't even register, you'd just assume everyone does it.
- shp0ngle 3y ago
  I don't think the troll actually intends to sue, though. You might be fine just ignoring them. (I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice.)
  - toyg 3y ago
    Absolutely, but it's not a certainty - after all, this scum is still made of law professionals, who file paperwork for a living. They know you know there is a slight risk they might be serious, and try to exploit it.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  > Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere. The intent of the law is a big part of what courts deal with in Roman law/civil law countries too. In Norway statutes are typically fairly general leaving precision to preparatory works, Supreme Court precedent, administrative regulations and the courts. So the spirit and intent of the law is certainly a big thing in at least some non-Anglosphere legal systems. See https://www.advokatforeningen.no/en/features-of-the-norwegian-legal-system/features-of-the-norwegian-legal-system/ https://www.advokatforeningen.no/en/features-of-the-norwegia... And the Anglosphere is hardly uniform in this respect, in particular in recent decades there has been a proliferation of detailed strict liability laws in England which restrict the courts abilities to interpret the law.
iinnPP 3y ago
Your example would still prove to be intent if those facts were provable. There's a concept known as "willful blindness" (at least in Canada) that covers what I believe you wanted as an example. Not a lawyer.
freejazz 3y ago
In copyright, reckless behavior can satisfy the willfulness requirements.

toyg 3y ago

Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere. Sadly, depending on the specific country it happens in, a defendant might still have to pay significant legal fees just to reach a point where the judge can tell trolls to go away. And that's where the business model kicks in: the trolls will offer to go away on their own if defendant pays them $LikelyLegalFees / 2, making it cheaper than the alternative. It's like the Kevin Bridges bus-stop joke: https://youtu.be/8W_k7ybGBDg https://youtu.be/8W_k7ybGBDg

EasyMark 3y ago
THe US Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would like to have a word with you. Particularly the past decade or so they have been truly awful when considering cases; ignoring precedence, common sense, democracy, and practicality whenever possible.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Veelox 3y ago
    When the decision is 9-0 and involves Trump it's highly unlikely they created their own meaning.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      The majority decided to answer a question not part of the case, namely that Congress must act to invoke 14.3. That determination means that the entire amendment is not self-executing. They leaned on the 14.5 for this, though a strict reading would be that the amendment is worded as self-executing with no stipulations and 14.5 only offers Congress an avenue to act for a universal answer to, in this case, the question of the eligibility disability. The ruling justifies this by saying that it seems nun reasonable for states to have the power of deeming a federal candidate ineligible. That meaning is not stipulated at all in the amendment, and goes in the face of both states' authority to run the election process and states' duty to enforce federal law (in this case the ineligibility of a candidate). The amendment does not stipulate that the power to enforce sits only with Congress, the bench made this up. The amendment does not limit the authority to enforce the amendment only with the federal government, they made this up. Nowhere in the amendment is it written as non self-executing, to the contrary 14.3 specifically provides a way for Congress to undo the intelligibility after the fact.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    A 9-0 victory including Obama and Biden's appointees? The gist of CO argument being that the state executive can unilaterally declare an event an insurrection (there has been no finding to date in court) thus blocking a candidate for federal office? The liberal justices threw this in the trash because they recognize how dangerous this is. After all, imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot [1] in 2020 were declared an insurrectionist by red-leaning states and barred from office? [1] Which were far more destructive and deadly than Jan 6 and did target federal buildings
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      > The gist of CO argument being that the state executive can unilaterally declare an event an insurrection (there has been no finding to date in court) thus blocking a candidate for federal office? The state executive didn't act unilaterally to declare it an insurrection. Though even if they had, I don't believe the constitution includes a definition of an insurrection or the process for how it is determined. > The liberal justices threw this in the trash because they recognize how dangerous this is. A presumed dangerous outcome should have no bearing on how the amendment is interpreted as written. Doing so moves the decision out of the realm of legal question and makes it political. Further, setting a precedent for "the ends justify the means" seems extremely dangerous itself. > After all, imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot [1] in 2020 were declared an insurrectionist by red-leaning states and barred from office? That's definitely an interesting question, though one that wasn't part of this case so the court didn't have to decide it. Its worth noting that the intelligibility in 14.3 is specific to those who already took an oath of office. Only those taking part in or supporting the riots and previously took an oath of office would be at risk.
      - dmoy 3y ago
        > That's definitely an interesting question, though one that wasn't part of this case so the court didn't have to decide it. Didn't they literally consider hypothetical future impact during the oral for this case? E.g. page 84 where Roberts asked about something like this.
- toyg 3y ago
  That's why I said "most honest judges", perfection is not of this world. I reckon that even just the fact that you're familiar with one specific set of people for being awkward, indicates that the overwhelming majority of other judges are not - otherwise the US 5th Circuit wouldn't even register, you'd just assume everyone does it.
shp0ngle 3y ago
I don't think the troll actually intends to sue, though. You might be fine just ignoring them. (I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice.)
- toyg 3y ago
  Absolutely, but it's not a certainty - after all, this scum is still made of law professionals, who file paperwork for a living. They know you know there is a slight risk they might be serious, and try to exploit it.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
> Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere. The intent of the law is a big part of what courts deal with in Roman law/civil law countries too. In Norway statutes are typically fairly general leaving precision to preparatory works, Supreme Court precedent, administrative regulations and the courts. So the spirit and intent of the law is certainly a big thing in at least some non-Anglosphere legal systems. See https://www.advokatforeningen.no/en/features-of-the-norwegian-legal-system/features-of-the-norwegian-legal-system/ https://www.advokatforeningen.no/en/features-of-the-norwegia... And the Anglosphere is hardly uniform in this respect, in particular in recent decades there has been a proliferation of detailed strict liability laws in England which restrict the courts abilities to interpret the law.

iinnPP 3y ago

Your example would still prove to be intent if those facts were provable. There's a concept known as "willful blindness" (at least in Canada) that covers what I believe you wanted as an example. Not a lawyer.

freejazz 3y ago

In copyright, reckless behavior can satisfy the willfulness requirements.