🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 Sep 2002 03:53:23 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:

>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!

I'm working on section 34 myself as there seems to be some areas that
if naive enough, presumption of ownership would be confusing.

In fact, I can't see a way to determine ownership of copyright without
downloading all the parts of the movie, posted over a few days,
applying the special codec ( this in itself makes it more confusing as
now the movie is in an altered state ) and actually joining the parts
to ready it for viewing it to see if someone is infringing on
copyright. 

Let's face it though. Anyone who has recorded a CFL, NFL football game
has broken this law. There is always a disclaimer as to not
viewing/showing it without express written consent.......


cheers
gutz