Are copyright infringers really criminals?

(I thought I'd launch a new thread just because the messages in the other ones are indented so far to the right I had to widen the room where I have my computer.)

There's been a lot of discussion here about whether unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is a crime. Are the perpetrators to be considered thieves, criminals, bootleggers, pirates, or whatever? According to copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506):

This seems to be only a matter of words. Nobody seems to be offended by 'copyright infringer,' so that works.

According to copyright law

I think (big think), that there has to be evidence of possession, i.e. the person they distributed the reproduction to. Seems kind of illogical to me, but that's all I can think of.

What you don't realize is that a lot of people do seriously use this argument. 'Well, we need people to solve this that are emotionally detached.' Of course, that usually means they know nothing about the subject at hand.

I realize it. I just found it funny enough to propose a parody of it.

I was thinking that rmmp was a sort of side addresee to the original thread since many of the posters never show up otherwise on rmmp. In any case you might want to cross post this one like the original thread was cross posted. I only read posts on this thread written by people I recognize from rmmp and then only if they are very short. I imagine that most of the rmmp regulars dont read the thread which is why, it was yourself I believe, someone was asking Larry for help apparently in vain. I doubt if he reads the thread. TS

posted.

Thanks, Tom, I just cross-posted. Maybe some day before I kack I'll get the hang of this Internet thing.

That's not what the statute says. 'Commercial advantage or private financial gain' is not the same as 'making a profit.' And notice that (1) and (2) are connected with 'or' and not 'and.'

And civil liability from many other sources, both under federal and state laws.

Nope. Many other statutes (both federal and local) as well as general principals of law protects software from theft.

Only admissible evidence may be considered by a trier of fact. There are well-established principals of evidence for both federal and state courts. I don't understand how you are using the term 'evidence' in this context.

There are two questions: what is provided for under current laws and what the law *should* be. The present laws are basically intended to protect the entertainment business from pirated copies of their works.

The recent trend has been to disregard the interests of both the consumer and the artists in favor of the big business interests (as is clearly evident in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The backlash against this approach is the popularity of the Napster-style trading of mp3 files. Unfortunately, it is the huge media conglomerates who have the lobbying power and the campaign funds. I doubt that artists and consumers will get any relief soon.

Note: This post contains a general discussion of legal issues and does NOT contain any legal advice. If you require legal advice on a specific issue, please consult with an attorney.

- - /****************************************************** **************** * Gary M. Letchinger * San Diego, California * Reply to the newsgroup only ******************************************************* ***************/

I was thinking the same thing too. I mean, I'm an RMMP regular and reading the thread, but I follow it on rec.music.bluenote too.

Hmm. What's the difference? I suppose intangible advancement of your business could be considered commercial advantage. If private financial gain isn't profit, I guess I don't understand it.

And notice that

But my two conditions are a 'not' and a 'less than' connected with an 'and' to form a negative. Boolean logic applies but it becomes complicated.

I should have added, 'under this code.' I thought it would be understood.

And I don't understand how the code uses the term because it doesn't qualify it further. But I am not a lawyer. I suppose they know what they are talking

You would need to look at the legislative history to see exactly the distinction Congress had in mind when the statute was passed. My guess is that the law was intended to apply when the violator was seeking to realize a profit or other benefit even if no profit was made. For example, let's say you manufacture 30,000 pirated CDs and sell only a few of them, for a net loss. Or let's say you flooded the market with pirated CDs to drive a competitor out of business, even though you lost money on the deal. It may be these sorts of examples that the law was intended to cover in addition to cases of clear profits.

I see it now. My apologies to you and Mr. Boole.

[...]

When dealing with statutes, and particularly federal statutes, I'm not sure that anyone knows what it is talking about. But a lawyer that practices in this field will be familiar with the case law and the way the courts have applied the statute. Reading just the statute gives you just one piece of the puzzle.

Disclaimer: This post contains a general discussion of legal issues and does NOT contain any legal advice. If you require legal advice on a specific issue, please consult with an attorney.

- - /****************************************************** **************** * Gary M. Letchinger * San Diego, California * Reply to the newsgroup only ******************************************************* ***************/

That whole thread had begun to irritate the hell out of me. It has taken over the newsgroup. I can't for the life of me figure out why so much needed to be said about such a simple subject. You're right. I never read a single one of the posts in the thread. It's worse than having the village idiot around again.

Larry Fletcher Pianos Inc Atlanta GA Dealer/technician

Doing the work of three men.....Larry, Curly, & Moe Want to visit another piano related messageboard? Go to the piano discussion group on my website:
Http://www.pianosinc.net

Hmm. Then how could it have annoyed you if you didn't read it?