Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:51:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Only for some pretty strange values of "worthless". AFAIU the only
>> legal effect of the notice requirements you cite is as defined by
>> subsection (d): if a compliant notice is present, a defendant is
>> excluded from the defense that he did not understand that the work was
>> copyrighted.
> Well, isn't prohibiting the "I didn't know it is copyrighted" defence
> the only legal effect of having the notice nowadays, anyway?
Yes. What I mean is that even a notice without a year will make it
much easier for the plaintiff to shoot that defence down than it would
be in the no-notice-at-all case - even if he has to do a slight bit
more than just point to a rule of procedure.
--
Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this
language has proved to be a valuable filter which
traps a significant proportion of programming errors."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
