View Single Post
Old 10-23-2009, 08:59 PM   #115
Shaggy
Wizard
Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shaggy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shaggy's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy View Post
Strict liability is not an outdated legal concept. It is being applied in this day and age. The clause I was referring to was added in 1999.
For example,the recent Jammie Thomas case (about uploading) took willful vs unwillful infringement into consideration in the jury instructions for determining damages. It was specifically not used to determine guilt or innocence. This is a direct quote from the Jury Instructions:

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17
To prove infringement, the plaintiffs need not prove that the defendant
intended to infringe. The defendant’s intent is not relevant to prove
infringement.
Shaggy is offline   Reply With Quote