Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I agree--but once triggered, DMCA anti-circumvention cases are more legally risky than direct copyright infringement cases. Distributing de-DRM tools is a criminal act; distributing copyrighted material is a civil violation. A handshake agreement with the copyright owner can make the latter vanish.
The law is arranged so that the action most people think of is more ethical, is easier to punish and more harshly penalized.
|
I'm not sure I understand your last statement, but copyright infringement can be prosecuted as a criminal act. I believe the limit is something like $25,000 which wouldn't be hard to reach. Say I de-DRM'd 1000 of my books & distributed them. If the prosecutor chose to value each book at $25, then I've reached the requirement for prosecution as a criminal act. Even if they assign an 'average' value of $15 then all they need to prove is sufficient activity that 2 copies of each book were downloaded. (That's a little vague, but in criminal cases it depends on the jury's belief which can be more or less than the evidence actually proves. And can be overturned on appeal, making the entire issue of 'proof' rather vague anyway.)
I'll certainly agree that copyright infringement seldom is prosecuted as a criminal act, but that's because individuals can't prosecute criminal acts-only the State can do that, and few prosecutors are really interested unless it's truly a major case. Individuals, OTOH, can pursue civil litigation at will, regardless of the amount. (Subject to acceptance of the case by the court, of course. Some cases are rejected as frivolous, but more often they're rejected for technical reasons, such as filing the case in the wrong court.)
The last time I recall hearing about criminal copyright infringement was a 'counterfeiting' ring in LA that was busted with tens of thousands of copies of Windows & Office. Don't remember the year, but think it was Windows 98.