begin oe_protect.scr
Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:42:10 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:38:24 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:47:44 -0500,
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:37:16 GMT, spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No, the fact that he's willfully infringing the copyright and making money
>>>>>> off of it does. That is the legal definition of criminal infringement.
>>>>>
>>>>> copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence unless the value of the
>>>>> material infringed is more than a certain amount of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dount one image accounts for 10p, let alone whatever that amount is.
>>>>
>>>> In the US, that's not true. If you make *ANY* money in the process of
>>>> infringing, and that infringement is willful, then it's criminal. The
>>>> amount of money involved is irrelevant. It's also criminal if the work is
>>>> worth more than $10,000.
>>>
>>> free clue,
>>>
>>> Roy's not *in* the US... you *did* know that, right Erik?
>>
>> The artist *IS*.
>>
>> Now, this might beg the question as to which laws apply. The Artwork is
>> shown on his website, which resides in the US. That means, when roy
>> infringed the copyright by copying the work, he copied it FROM a US server,
>> which effectively means it occured in the US, even though ROY is not there.
>> That would be no different than someone coming into the US to commit a
>> crime, then leaving before he got caught.
>>
>
> No, it's not the same at all. You *really* need a semester on
> jurisdiction....
>
>> Also, you're assuming that british copyright isn't similar, which would be
>> a mistake to assume because both are part of the same treaties.
>
> No, I am assuming nothing, I am simply pointing out that US law is not
> relevent to someone outside the US, unless you'd care to defend
> scurrilous actions like the Skylarov incident? Is that what you want to
> support?
>
I think that the world has a long way to go before sorting these things
out. Genuine mistakes are rarely worth pursuing in copyright law
anyway, it's not about criminal offenses here, it would be about loss of
earnings in some way, so the most anyone could get would be a minor
settlement, /perhaps/ plus legal costs, but maybe not even that if a
judge felt the claim were frivolous, so the claimant (or plaintiff or
whatever they're called?) could risk being out of pocket.
If the claimant could prove that Roy'd deliberately continued to use an
image after being told he couldn't, and made money out of it, things
might change a little, but I doubt it would be very much.
Unless Roy's some kind of secretive, hermitic, multi-millionaire, who
whiles away his days in a gin-palace, posting news stories to Cola :-)
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Every man is as God made him, ay, and often worse.
-- Miguel de Cervantes
|
|
