Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, we really need to re-establish the practice of using signed, contracts, (as opposed to clicking through a web page) negotiated to protect both parties in order to further the healthy practice for all.

A clause to protect the seller would read as simple as "seller shall not be liable for counterfeit media as long as intent was demonstrated to sell legitimate merchandise."

The situation sounds to me like a case of someone abusing power/authority to confiscate a large quantity of product or knock someone else out of a market.




> A clause to protect the seller would read as simple as "seller shall not be liable for counterfeit media as long as intent was demonstrated to sell legitimate merchandise."

Copyright infringement is a crime, not a contract violation. Changing your contracts doesn't help. I'm not sure if you mean to put the clause in the contract between the merchant and Amazon or in the contract between the customer and Amazon, but it doesn't matter: the rights-holder hasn't signed either of those contracts and isn't bound by them.

Furthermore, the law is probably (I am not a lawyer and if I were I would not be practicing in California, and if I were admitted to practice in California then I wouldn't be a lawyer who had studied this particular case) already covering this. Normally, copyright violation is not a strict liability offense, it requires mens rea. That is, it is not an excuse that you didn't know it was illegal, but it IS an excuse if you didn't know you were doing it. There is a good chance that the reason this person lost the court case is because he did not have good legal representation. Of course it is quite possible that the good legal representation would have cost as much as losing the case, but that is one of the flaws of our legal system.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: