"Illegal content" (Re: Megaupload.com seized)

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Fri Jan 20 13:07:29 CST 2012


On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:51 CST, Robert Bonomi said:

> Sorry, but the last sentence is simply _not_ true.  If the making of the
> copy was a violation of 17 USC 106 (1) or (2), it's existance is proscribed
> by law.

Nice try, but reading 17 USC 503 (b) we see:

"As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or
other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been
made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and
of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other
articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced."

Note - the court *may* order the destruction. It's not mandatory.  And there's
no implied mandatory destruction elsewhere - if there was, 503(b) wouldn't need
to exist because the destruction would already be required, so a court couldn't
order additional destruction.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120120/7997ce35/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list