The licence?

If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.

▲

wongarsu 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just because it says "CC0" does not make it CC0. If you upload a dataset you don't have the rights to, any license declaration you make is null and void, and anyone using it as if it had that license is violating copyright

Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0

▲

noosphr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you buy a pirated book on Amazon you get to keep the book and the pirate printer is the one persecuted.

Same thing applies here.

Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.

▲

nhinck2 an hour ago | parent [-]

The only reason you get to keep the book is because no bothers to enforce the law, this doesn't make it legal.

And it is your job to check that you have the rights to use other people's work. Ignorance is not a defence.

	▲	ribosometronome 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>the law Which ones? As far as I was aware, it's a crime to redistribute copyrighted works, not receive.

▲

slopinthebag 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh come on. The licence was obviously incorrect and you cant escape culpability because of that.