🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3d8fcfa8$1@news.eol.ca>, NEWS <wromop@newwws.net> wrote:
:As for "acting in good faith", that was my error.  I tried to paraphrase,
:but it looks like I used the wrong choice of words, Quote - R.S.C. 1985, c.
:C-42 (Copyright Act) Section 38. (2) Where a copyright owner has made an
:election under subsection (1) and the defendant satisfies the court that the
:defendant was not aware and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the
:defendant had infringed copyright, the court may reduce the amount of the
:award to less than $500, but not less than $200.

True, but there's a problem with that area, it seems to me.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/36364.html

  39. (1) Subject to subsection (2), in
  any proceedings for infringement
  of copyright, the plaintiff is not
  entitled to any remedy other than an
  injunction in respect of the
  infringement if the defendant
  proves that, at the date of the
  infringement, the defendant was not
  aware and had no reasonable ground
  for suspecting that copyright
  subsisted in the work or other
  subject-matter in question.


Notice that those are the same conditions as for 38.1(2). We are
left in a contradiction. 38.1(1) says that instead of damages under 35(1),
the plaintiff may take statuatory damages and 38.1(2) limits the
amount of the award under some conditions; then 39(1) says that
under those same conditions, the only 'remedy' the plaintiff is
entitled to is injunction. Are summary damages a form of 'remedy' ?
If they are then under the conditions that 38.1(2) applies in, then
39(1) implies that they cannot be collected at all!

--
Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics
they see in .signatures.