<div><div dir="auto"><span>With the usual caveat that I\u2019m just dipping my toe in this thread and reading every fifth post at best:</span></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><span><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span>On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 6:08\u202fPM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p dir="auto">What I find distinguishable about a termination of the copyright
license versus the patent license is that copyright infringement
doesn't happen by accident. There is no copyright infringement
without deliberate, knowing copying. Someone may have made the
judgment call that the copying is lawful, and therefore not an
infringement, but it was nevertheless intentional conduct.<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><div dir="auto">This conflates two different things: copying is always intentional, but not all copying is copyright infringement. There are very clear good-faith arguments (under both the EU\u2019s TDM exception and US fair use) that the sorts of copying we\u2019re mostly talking about here are not copyright infringement.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now, maybe you don\u2019t agree with those arguments (I move back and forth myself a lot of the time!) but intentional copying doesn\u2019t mean intentional infringement.</div><div dir="auto"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p dir="auto"></p></div>
</blockquote>
</div>