On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:38:24 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:47:44 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:37:16 GMT, spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>> No, the fact that he's willfully infringing the copyright and making money
>>>> off of it does. That is the legal definition of criminal infringement.
>>>
>>> copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence unless the value of the
>>> material infringed is more than a certain amount of money.
>>>
>>> I dount one image accounts for 10p, let alone whatever that amount is.
>>
>> In the US, that's not true. If you make *ANY* money in the process of
>> infringing, and that infringement is willful, then it's criminal. The
>> amount of money involved is irrelevant. It's also criminal if the work is
>> worth more than $10,000.
>
> free clue,
>
> Roy's not *in* the US... you *did* know that, right Erik?
The artist *IS*.
Now, this might beg the question as to which laws apply. The Artwork is
shown on his website, which resides in the US. That means, when roy
infringed the copyright by copying the work, he copied it FROM a US server,
which effectively means it occured in the US, even though ROY is not there.
That would be no different than someone coming into the US to commit a
crime, then leaving before he got caught.
Also, you're assuming that british copyright isn't similar, which would be
a mistake to assume because both are part of the same treaties.
|
|
