by Mike Masnick
Tue, Aug 18th 2009 6:55pm
Michael Scott points us to an interesting -- if a bit technical legally speaking -- discussion over whether or not indemnifications exist for copyrighted materials. The discussion involves a homebuilder, who built some homes based on plans he bought from a third party. It later turned out that the plans were infringing copies, but the builder believed they were legit. So, in any common sense world, the liable party should be the guy who sold the infringing plans. But at least some lawyers and judges seem to believe that there is no indemnification in copyright law, and thus the copyright holder can basically sue whoever he wants up and down the chain. But, of course, not everyone sees it that way, and by the end of the post, it's pretty clear that the court in this particular case got it wrong. Blaming the builder, who had no clue that the plans were infringing, simply makes no sense.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Judge Mocks Public Interest Concerns About Kicking People Off Internet, Tells Cox It's Not Protected By The DMCA
- YouTube Puts Some Monetary Weight Behind Fighting For Fair Use: Others Should Too
- Dumb Idea... Or The Dumbest Idea? Seize Terrorists' Copyrights And Then Censor Them With The DMCA
- Okay, Now A Survivor Member Really Did Sue Mike Huckabee For Using 'Eye Of The Tiger' At Kim Davis Rally
- More Evidence Of How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear In A Giant Black Hole