🚀 go-pugleaf

telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

> It already happened in the US when that Russian guy wrote a reader
> for Adobe e-books that translated into text suitable for a blind reader.

Far as I can see, the case against the Russian has been dropped, and his 
company was found not guilty. In any case, I cannot see its relevance here.

>>I don't really see the objection to catching this conduct. In the case 
>>where the infringer didn't know that the original was infringing, and 
>>could reasonably believe that it was not, the defence of honest and 
>>reasonable belief would exist, so it's not as if this criminalises 
>>innocent people.
> 
> 
> Consider that SCO claims that Linux is infringing SCO copyrights.
> They have brought no evidence into public view but still they have made
> a complaint and told me that I must stop using Linux. Do I have a defense
> of honest and reasonable belief when I decide to continue using Linux?
> How am I supposed to know which way the case will go? If every complaint
> is presumed to be true then I cannot safely use any software, but if I
> ignore every complaint then I'm potentially a criminal. How can I reliably
> know which software is safe to use?

The defense of honest and reasonable belief does not require that the 
belief be correct, only that it be honest and reasonable. The belief 
that Linux does not infringe SCO's copyright can be reasonably held 
until SCO produces concrete evidence of an infringement (and they seem 
to be having some considerable difficulty doing that). The belief does 
not become unreasonable merely because some company alledges that a 
product is infringing.