On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 17:53 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Dave Sherohman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:54:08PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>John Hasler wrote: > >> > >>>There is no theft involved here. > >> > >>Are you aware of the details of the case? How do you know that no > >>theft was involved? > > > > > > I believe his point was that copyright violation is not theft. > > I believe he is wrong, in the USA, at least. You might investigate the > DMCA. AIUI, copyright violation has been moved from being a tort to > being a crime. >
I believe you are thinking of the "NET (No Electronic Theft) Act," which expanded the criteria for criminal copyright infringement, updating the criteria to include illegal electronic transfer of copyrighted material if that transfer rises to a certain level (1 or more copies with a total retail value of at least $1,000 within a 180-day period). See: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm Despite the name of the Act, nowhere in the statute is copyright infringement actually called or equated with "theft." The only difference between "criminal copyright infringement" and regular copyright infringement is that the former is punishable under criminal statutes and the latter is not. The name of the Act is just an attempt to make it memorable, which Congressfolk do all the time these days. It's no more meaningful than the name of the "Patriot Act," which has nothing to do with patriotism. -- Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
