On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:05:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Marco d'Itri writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>Is a license that requires micropayments in exchange for distribution rights > >>free? If not, why is a cost measured in terms of legal risk imposed by the > >>license more free than one measured in hundredths of a cent? > > Because it's not obviously a "cost". > > I have already explained why it *is* a cost.
It's a potential cost, not an actual cost. I think the cost is much lower than you are making it out to be. If the lawsuit is truly frivolous (meant only for harassment), the only cost should be that of retaining a local attorney in the chosen venue to represent you. Appearing personally would probably not even be required. On the other hand, if the court decided that the complaint had merit, you would have to defend yourself anyway, regardless of the venue. The costs in travel time and airfare would likely amount to only a small portion of the total cost of defending yourself, as an attorney could represent you for most of the proceedings. As others have said before, this mostly boils down to a convenience factor. This clause makes the venue convenient for the copyright holder in matters of enforcement, as opposed to making it convenient for the (suspected) copyright violator. That's ok with me. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]