Actually, civil copyright infringement liability doesn't turn on knowledge. You can be an infringer even if you don't know. Criminal copyright infringement requires a guilty mental state, so *that* you have to know.
From: Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>
i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of copyrighted material?
Cubby v. Compuserve is relevant here, as well as that bookstore case in the 50's that I never remember the name of. Mike G., can you help me out on this one?
These cases are about other kinds of wrongs (libel in one and obscenity (?) in the other), but copyright violation doesn't seem to be have any particular features to set it apart from the basic principle of these. Namely, if you know, you're responsible; if you don't, you're not. This, you all realize no doubt, is a gross simplification of a long chain of reasoning.
what exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
The short answer is that if you didn't sign a trade secret agreement or are party to one by some other relationship (such as agency), then a trade secret that comes your way is no secret any more.
clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly intimidation tactics?
I have personal experience with the first case. It was a local BBS run by a friend of a friend, and I got involved a year ago right after the seizure. (It was, BTW, a _civil_ seizure of a BBS, not criminal.) I believe the case settled out of court. There were court documents approving the seizure however; I don't know if these set precedent or not. I suspect not, because the action was entirely _ex parte_ (Latin for one-sided). Mike, again? Other legal folk?
I know nothing about the second one.
nhow do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through.
The people who keep logs, yes, are in more danger than those who don't.
Eric