Q14 - Principle: Any person or business

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)

Stimulus Breakdown:
P: Knowingly help copyright infringement → Guilty

A: GDS is guilty because someone used their kiosk to print copyrighted wedding photos.

Answer Anticipation:
To be guilty, the help must have been knowing. The Application doesn't state whether GDS knew they were helping someone infringe, so the correct answer will state something about their knowledge.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This answer doesn't discuss whether GDS knew what they were doing, just that they need to treat all customers equally.

(B) Out of scope. An obligation to report is much different than knowingly aiding.

(C) Out of scope. An duty to inform customers of the law is different than knowingly aiding.

(D) Tempting! This answer creates a duty to monitor facilities to prevent illegal usage. The principle, however, triggers with knowing aid, and this answer doesn't mention any knowledge on GDS's part.

(E) Bingo. This answer choice brings up the "knowing" that was missing from the application. I might have hesitated for a moment because the stimulus doesn't speak to an expectation of being used to infringe copyrights. But I've eliminated all the other answers, and the statement (can be expected) is weak enough that it sets a low bar. If your kiosk can be used to create copyrighted material (which isn't an assumption here, but a definition of the photo-printing kiosk), then it can be expected to be used to infringe on copyrights.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Be very literal in these questions. Some of the incorrect answers set actions that GDS should have taken, but it's knowing aid that reaches the level of guilt, according to the principle.

#officialexplanation