On 7/14/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** Michael K. Edwards :: > > Sean's a little bit right here (is that like a little bit > > pregnant?), in that copies made without authorization are in > > principle subject to seizure and forfeiture no matter who is > > presently holding them. AIUI (IANAL), that's true of stolen and > > converted property generally and specifically, under 17 USC 509, > > of copies whose unauthorized creation and distribution rises to > > the level of criminal infringement under 506(a). > > Michael, I normally agree with you, but you are way off-base this > time. He was referring to copies that were LAWFULLY acquired from a > LICENSED distributor.
But I was referring to "copies made without authorization". I thought I'd made it clear in other messages that I think that, absent knowing collusion in a fraudulent scheme, it is not the recipient's problem to obtain that authorization. Cheers, - Michael
