Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:53:19 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: "Ronald J Riley \(RJR Com\)" <rjr () rjriley com> Date: April 18, 2009 2:40:40 PM EDTTo: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>, "'Andy Oram'" <andyo () oreilly com >
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay GuiltyI very much agree with Andy Oram's position on copyright. This is notable because I firmly believe that people and companies who produce intellectual
property regardless of rather it is copyright, trademarks, or patents deserve fair compensation.So why should copyright have criminal sanctions and statutory damages when
other forms of intellectual property do not?Specifically, where patents are concerned why not have mandatory enhanced
damages? How about at least double for willfulness and treble forcommitting fraud on the court as RIM did in the NTP case and Microsoft did in the Eolas case? Better yet, why not multiply each enhancement when more
then one factor is involved?Both of these companies are members of a group of serial infringers calling
themselves the Coalition for Patent Fairness. Ronald J. Riley, Speaking only on my own behalf. President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org President - Alliance for American InnovationCaretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder
Paul Heckel Washington, DC Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST. -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:29 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty Begin forwarded message: From: Andy Oram <andyo () oreilly com> Date: April 17, 2009 9:17:46 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty Up until 1997, copyright infringement in the US was a civil matter. If you hurt me in some way, I can sue you; it doesn't have to be a criminal act. That view was applied implicitly to copyright infringement. If someone abuses your copyright, you sue. It's a different matter when something is a crime: now the government is forced to police the territory and expend precious resources enforcing the law. I reported on this change in the US in a 1998 article (I don't know the history in Europe): http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/copyright_theft.html The Gifts That Keep On Giving--Copyright Revenues I do believe that massive unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material is a crime. But we drug runners murdering people in the streets, thousands of workers being cheated out of wages by scufflaw employers, and all kinds of serious crimes that really threaten lives. It's not in the public interest to turn copyright infringement from a civil offense to a criminal one. And it leads to violations of privacy and civil liberties in ever-more desperate attempts to enforce laws. Andy ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty David Farber (Apr 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty David Farber (Apr 17)
- Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty David Farber (Apr 17)
- Re: Verdict: The Pirate Bay Guilty David Farber (Apr 18)