Sender Information:
Extensis, Inc.
Sent by: Extensis, Inc.
[Private]
licensing@extensi

[back to notice text]

Answer: The federal Copyright Act may be found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Yes, but only for specifically authorized archival purposes, as specified in 17 U.S.C. sec. 117(2). This does not authorize sharing or selling of backup copies. The rule allows transfer to another person only with the explicit authorization of the copyright owner and only if he original copy is transferred. Backups for individual use and those considered "an essential step" in using the software with an individual's computer are also authorized.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above.

The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use
   
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
   
3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and
   
4. the market effect.
   

(17 U.S.C. 107)

The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use."

Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Copyright law provides an incentive to create software, music, literature and other works by ensuring that the creator will be able to reap the financial benefits of the work.

[back to notice text]

Answer: In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504)

Violation of copyright law is also considered a federal crime when done willfully with an intent to profit. Criminal penalties include up to ten years imprisonment depending on the nature of the violation. (No Electronic Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. 2319)

[back to notice text]

Answer: In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504)

Violation of copyright law is also considered a federal crime when done willfully with an intent to profit. Criminal penalties include up to ten years imprisonment depending on the nature of the violation. (No Electronic Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. 2319)

[back to notice text]

Answer: No. Copyright infringement actions do not require that you actually knew that the files were protected by copyright or that your use of the files violated federal law. Claims of ignorance cannot be used as a defense to direct copyright infringement, Lack of knowledge, is, however, a defense to contributory infringement. See What is contributory infringement?

[back to notice text]

Answer: In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504)

Violation of copyright law is also considered a federal crime when done willfully with an intent to profit. Criminal penalties include up to ten years imprisonment depending on the nature of the violation. (No Electronic Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. 2319)

[back to notice text]

Answer: Tortious interference with a business relationship is a claim by a contracting party against a third party for unjustified interference with the contractual relationship. To establish a claim for interference with contract, a plaintiff must plead and prove: (1) a valid and existing contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.

[back to notice text]

Answer: Punitive damages are damages intended to punish and deter similar wrongful conduct rather than merely compensate for losses suffered by the plaintiff (called compensatory damages). Punitive damages are authorized when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit. As for the amount of punitive damages awardable, the Supreme Court has held that three guidelines help determine whether a punitive-damages award violates constitutional due process: (1) the reprehensibility of the conduct being punished; (2) the reasonableness of the relationship between the harm and the award; and (3) the difference between the award and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases." BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996).

[back to notice text]

Answer: The cease and desist letter gives its recipient ("you") notice that someone is claiming something you've done or something on your site infringes a copyright. If the materials that are the subject of the notice are in fact infringing, then you do have a duty to remove them, although there may be statutory provisions (DMCA Safe Harbor) that protect you from a lawsuit if the materials were posted by someone else. You may have to give the poster notice of the complaint.

If you do not believe that the materials are infringing, or if you believe that you are making fair use of the materials, you may choose to take the risk of not removing the materials, but a lawsuit might follow in which the complainer tries to prove they they are right and you are wrong. If the accuser obtains a court order, then you must take down the materials.