Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:48:35 GMT, spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> 0. Erik wouldn't have included the word "criminal" in his allegations
>>>> (unless he could actually produce evidence to support that).
>>
>>> My evidence is the authors statement to me that Roy is infringing his
>>> copyright.
>>
>> And that's criminal is it?
>> News to me.
> 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.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
