On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 03:18:10PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of > vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter > can be held liable for inciting and/or abetting the direct infringer's > conduct. My argument is instead that that binary is perfectly > legitimate to begin with.
My argument is that infringment has to actually take place in order for there to be contributory infringement. If this is not the case, please explain how there can be contributory infringement without any actual infringement taking place. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
