[oclug] Canadian LUGs and SCO

[Brad Barnett]

On 26 Jul 2003 17:23:54 -0400
Rod Giffin <rod at giffinscientific.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 16:20, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > On 26 Jul 2003 16:07:44 -0400
> > Rod Giffin <rod at giffinscientific.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 14:50, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > > > You're not catching on though Rod.  You can not be *tricked* into
> > > > breaking*any* law, and then held liable, if you had reasonable
> > > > cause to believe what you were doing is quite legal and
> > > > legitimate.  Linux's reputation is enough (up until this point) to
> > > > show that anyone using it had the firm belief that it was GPL
> > > > pure.
> > > > 
> > > > People running Linux today have not broken any copyright laws,
> > > > because_INTENT_ is a large, large part of the law, even in the US.
> > > >  For
> > > > example, all of part 5 is void, intent was not there! 
> > > 
> > > Section 5 does not deal with intent, unless an act of fraud was also
> > > committed (eg. fraudulently removing or replacing a copyright
> > > notice.) Section 5 also specifies that if there is intent, that a
> > > breach of copyright is also an offense (para 506) under 2319 of
> > > Title 18... i.e. a criminal offense.
> > 
> > Intent does not need to be written into law.  Intent is used in the
> > application and determination of law.
> 
> Not so.  You said that "all of part 5 is void if intent was not there." 
> I simply indicated above that is not the case, that if intent to breach
> is proven, the matter is then criminal.
> 
> Ok, look. I could recite parts of Title 17 to you from memory, including
> para 506.   This is now far beyond being a discussion beneficial to
> OCLUG.  If you are interested in pursuing it any further, please contact
> me off-list.  I would be happy to assist your understanding of US
> Copyright law and the regulations that accompany it in any way I can.
> 

Rod, I hate to say this, but you obviously don't understand the
application of law.  Simply reading a law does not give you an
understanding of how that law will be used, the extenuating
circumstances that occur during a supposed breach of that law, and how a
judge and court will use this in a determination.

I have repetitively tried to enlighten you on how law is applied, yet you
keep pointing to paragraphs of text which are useless without a framework
to apply them in.  Until you start to accept and look at that framework,
you will continue to make improper determinations like you have so clearly
done.  Again, a law is not applied by itself, but is applied in an entire
legal framework that has been around for centuries upon centuries.

I suggest you rethink your position after looking at Copyright law in a
wider scope, with the inclusion of the rest of the US legal system.

You are right though, this has probably moved into an off list matter.