🚀 go-pugleaf

telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

> The relevance is that e-books is a proprietary format and Adobe
> believe they have the right to decide who can and who cannot read
> their format. The right to be compatible with proprietary formats
> is one thing we are fighting for.

My understanding of the case is that he wrote software that was a 
circumvention device within the meaning of the DMCA, and it was not 
covered by an exemption. I don't see where "results in" comes into it.

It's certainly true that companies are trying to leverage copyright 
protection to maintain their business model, and I certainly believe 
that this needs legislative attention, but I'm not yet aware of a case 
where someone was legally prevented from producing compatible software 
that did not otherwise compromise the protection of copyright. It's 
going to be interesting to see how the iPod/Real dispute pans out 
(though that's a slightly different scenario).

> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> How reliable is this interpretation? What exactly counts as "concrete
> evidence" and how does a mere programmer get a trustworthy opinion
> as to what evidence to believe? Sure you can go to a lawyer but most of
> them don't know enough about the technical issues to produce a meaningful
> answer -- most courts find it pretty damn difficult to sort such things
> out. I've known people to have widely different ideas as to what is
> "reasonable". Remember there are criminal penalties for getting this
> wrong: going to jail, having a criminal record, not being able to get a
> job -- the sort of stuff people take seriously.

Actually, my "concrete evidence" point is probably just muddying the 
waters. You don't have to go out and search for evidence for and against 
your belief, and then form a judgement. You bought Linux on a CD in a 
shop, or downloaded it from a reputable mirror site. You understand that 
Linux is free software than can be copied at will as long as you comply 
with the GNU licence. Does the reasonable person (and that's the test 
for the belief being reasonable) believe that they can legally use the 
software in that circumstance? I would say so, and that's all that's 
required.

Note in passing that the belief has to relate to facts, not to the law. 
An incorrect belief about what the law says is no defence.

Sylvia.