View Single Post
Old 01-05-2019, 08:29 PM   #270
Hitch
Bookmaker & Cat Slave
Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hitch ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,503
Karma: 158448243
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Device: K2, iPad, KFire, PPW, Voyage, NookColor. 2 Droid, Oasis, Boox Note2
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl View Post
@DNSB. "Commercial" is used very widely here because there are so many jurisdictions and so many offences. Even ad and affiliate revenue for websites is usually enough, even if they distribute for free. And yes, there are some offences in some countries which may arguably apply to simple distributing. But simply making a copy for your own personal use does not seem to be covered by any offence that I have come across in any jurisdiction.
I'm pretty sure that nobody was making the argument that making a single copy was a criminally prosecutable offense. My post was naught but to correct the misapprehension that copyright infringement is always or only civil; it's not.

And yes--commercial distribution of any quantity, pretty much qualifies as criminal. In the USA, Congress first criminalized copyright infringement in 1897. (That was for plays and music, not books, fwiw.) In 1907, I think it was, they broadened it to all types of infringement, but for criminality, it must be wilful and "for profit." (Not for personal use.) The fine was $25K, and up to a year in the slammer. To this day, if you prosecute this, you don't actually even need to demonstrate that any profit was attained; only that the intent was there. Criminal penalties were increased in 1974; in '82, felony criminality was added. In 1984, the prison terms were increased. (FYI, the "number of copies" that was the indicia for criminality and felony was 100 copies. That was later changed to value, versus the number of copies.)

The DMCA added three new areas of criminal acts. Circumventing DRM; selling devices intended to circumvent DRM, and selling devices that are intended to "bypass a copyright owner's normal copyright rights." (don't ask).

Those, BTW, aren't actually considered copyright infringement; they are separate and apart from normal infringement.

I would add that post-Napster, a variety of additional governmental departments and "task forces" have been set up, with the very specific goal of increased criminal prosecutions for infringement--not for major infringements only. Offered only FWIW.

Hitch
Hitch is offline   Reply With Quote