Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karliss | Hacker News Reader

I wonder does making a minor mistake in attribution really count as "wilful infringement"? As a layman, I would expect that any reasonable attempts to comply with license requirements should indicate that infringement was accidental. Sure, if it's a large company whose legal advisor instructs do x to avoid maximum penalty, with intention to infringe the copyright, that should probably still count as wilful infringement.

View on HN

Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere.

Sadly, depending on the specific country it happens in, a defendant might still have to pay significant legal fees just to reach a point where the judge can tell trolls to go away. And that's where the business model kicks in: the trolls will offer to go away on their own if defendant pays them $LikelyLegalFees / 2, making it cheaper than the alternative.

It's like the Kevin Bridges bus-stop joke: https://youtu.be/8W_k7ybGBDg

THe US Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals would like to have a word with you. Particularly the past decade or so they have been truly awful when considering cases; ignoring precedence, common sense, democracy, and practicality whenever possible.

That's why I said "most honest judges", perfection is not of this world. I reckon that even just the fact that you're familiar with one specific set of people for being awkward, indicates that the overwhelming majority of other judges are not - otherwise the US 5th Circuit wouldn't even register, you'd just assume everyone does it.

> Spirit-of-the-law practice means most honest judges would quickly throw out this sort of technicality-based argument, particularly in the anglosphere.

The intent of the law is a big part of what courts deal with in Roman law/civil law countries too. In Norway statutes are typically fairly general leaving precision to preparatory works, Supreme Court precedent, administrative regulations and the courts. So the spirit and intent of the law is certainly a big thing in at least some non-Anglosphere legal systems.

See https://www.advokatforeningen.no/en/features-of-the-norwegia...

And the Anglosphere is hardly uniform in this respect, in particular in recent decades there has been a proliferation of detailed strict liability laws in England which restrict the courts abilities to interpret the law.

I don't think the troll actually intends to sue, though. You might be fine just ignoring them.

(I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal advice.)

Absolutely, but it's not a certainty - after all, this scum is still made of law professionals, who file paperwork for a living. They know you know there is a slight risk they might be serious, and try to exploit it.

Your example would still prove to be intent if those facts were provable.

There's a concept known as "willful blindness" (at least in Canada) that covers what I believe you wanted as an example.

Not a lawyer.

In copyright, reckless behavior can satisfy the willfulness requirements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com