simo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: [...] > > In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has > > negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now > > a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The > > copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case. > > Can you point me at proof of this claim?
In England, I'd point at Section 107A, Chapter VI "Remedies for Infringement", Part I "Copyright" of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (as amended) which states: "It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce within their area the provisions of section 107." http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250424 Section 107 is "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c." So it's worse here than Ben Finney suggests: no-one need even request that the state prosecutes. The only saving grace for us is that the above is written in our law, but has not yet been activated. However, I think that will only take a statement by a minister, not a full legislature vote, and I believe many state agencies are acting as if it has (as is their choice). Agents even complain bitterly when they start trying to prosecute copiers and are told that a general public licence has been issued. See, for example, Gervase Markham's article in the Times last year: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article733264.ece and follow-up at http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/02/trading_standards_followup.html So, in England, the free software gamekeepers are funding the proprietary poachers! This is part of a growing trend of establishment of private monopolies, a series of "New Enclosures", also covering such things as gene technology and private public spaces, which I have been speaking about publicly since 2004 at least. We need to take a two-pronged approach: firstly, try to reverse this establishment; secondly, while it exists, use it to fund enforcement of free software licences (thereby diverting funds from BSA work). > [...] The > idea not to release authorship publicly is to avoid getting bothered. > But proof is needed to be able to get down wannabe fake owners. However, no downstream licensee would be able to verify that they had permission to use/adapt/copy it, which could be a problem for them and would almost certainly have a "chilling effect" on use. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
