In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov says... > (top-posting, see below)
Heh. This wouldn't be the first time, by far, that long-superceded or old, never-established minority judicial opinions (reading, Gini?) are quoted as Very Important in usenet... Banty > >El Tux wrote: > >[... Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) ...] > > >Oh dear El Tux, that (1985) was long before December 16, 1997, when >President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the No Electronic Theft Act -- into >law. > >FYI: > >http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju48724.000/hju48724_0.HTM > >"The case of United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. >1994), has drawn attention to current law's shortcomings. David >LaMacchia, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology >described by the court as a ''computer hacker,'' id. at 536, created and >operated electronic bulletin boards on the Internet and encouraged users >to upload and download copies of popular copyrighted commercial >software. The illegal copying that took place on the bulletin boards >resulted in alleged losses to the copyright owners of over one million >dollars. Because LaMacchia lacked a commercial motive, however, the >government charged him with wire fraud rather than criminal copyright >infringement. Id. at 541–42. The court dismissed the indictment, holding >that copyright infringement can only be prosecuted under the Copyright >Act. Id. at 545 (relying on Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 >(1985)). > > LaMacchia demonstrates that the lack of criminal penalties for >willful, noncommercial infringement has become a significant loophole in >the digital environment. The court itself decried this loophole, >expressing frustration with the confines of section 506(a): > >[O]ne might at best describe [the defendant's] actions as heedlessly >irresponsible, and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking >in any fundamental sense of values. Criminal as well as civil penalties >should probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted >software even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer. . >. . But, it is the legislature, not the Court which is to define a >crime, and ordain its punishment. > >Id. at 545 (quotations omitted). > > H.R. 2265 responds to the court's call for a legislative solution to >its dilemma. The bill would close the loophole in current law by making >two main changes. First, it clarifies that the ''private financial >gain'' element of criminal infringement includes barter—that is, >situations where the illegal copies are traded for items of value such >as other copyrighted works, not only where they are sold for money. >Second, it redefines criminal infringement to include willful >infringement by reproduction or distribution, including by electronic >means, that lacks a commercial motive but has a substantial commercial >effect. > >regards, >alexander. > > -- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
