er the person 后,起诉人(唱片公司)要求简易判决版权侵权。РP2P file work. After Mr Bowles’ identity was knows, or has reason to believe, that what (s)he is doing Рobtained following a Norwich Pharmacal order7, the is an infringement, because innocence or ignorance is no Рclaimants (the panies) requested for summary defence. The mere fact that the files were present and Рjudgment for copyright infringement. Bowles admitted were made available is sufficient for the infringement to Рthat he had used a P2P software, but was unaware that have mitted.Рby doing so he was distributing music. He had had the Рsoftware on puter for about a year, and his chil-Рdren had used it for downloading music.Р7 For more regarding the Norwich Pharmacal order see infra case EMI 9 关于《诺里奇药物令》的更多内容,参见后面的案例EMI 唱片公司诉Р Records v . 公司.Р 9 10
全文预览
