So say a rogue employee takes a copy of his company's client list to use for himself after he leaves the company, that's piracy not theft, right?
Is he using it to make money?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
So say a rogue employee takes a copy of his company's client list to use for himself after he leaves the company, that's piracy not theft, right?
Is he using it to make money?
Is that your test of theft? If so, all those folk who knicked a car for a joy ride rather than re-birth it and sell it, and got busted, shouldn't face a penalty.
Is that your test of theft?
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218
But what is an appropriate penalty for theft? It isn't just repaying what you pinched.
She hasn't been convicted of any crime.None.This is a civil matter.
actually she been convicted, however the penalty she was ordered to pay on the original case was set aside, but she has been convicted of a criminal offence last year so your wrong
marvellous effort to prosecute this case, should be more of it.
as for victimless, if they are unwilling to pay for the right to the IP, then they should NOT have the benifit of the IP.
if the owner of the IP CHOOSES to release the IP freely, thats one thing, but when the owner of IP CHOOSES to NOT release the IP freely, and imposes a charge to use the IP, and you take it without permission, then its a crime and you should be punished.
2.4m is excessive, i think a fine of a few thousand dollars should be sufficient, however she CHOSE not to accept the fine, and now must wear the consequences of HER choice to fight for the right to take IP without permission.
she has been found guilty of a criminal offence and lost a civil case, her choices all the way to fight justice.
I think Zarrix mentioned something like add 5 per cent on the top or something. The courts should be able to work out a reasonable penalty without going over the top.
Link to the criminal conviction story?
CP infringement isn't theft, it's infringement
[/INDENT]
phrase lifted from the linked article
Thomas-Rasset had been convicted previously, in October 2007, and ordered to pay $US220,000 ($A275,000) in damages but the judge who presided over that trial threw out the verdict calling it "wholly disproportionate" and "oppressive".
clearly the court saw the original fine as insufficient.
of course she COULD have settled for $3000 to $5000 as offered originally and apparently some 30,000 other people have accepted when getting caught, but she had to try and defend the indefensible and got burnt.
she got what she deserved.
wish they did more of this
CP infringement isn't theft, it's infringement
[/INDENT]
Her criminal trial was declared a mistrial,wasn't it?The judge gave the jury wrong instructions.You're getting your civil and criminal courts mixed up.Either way she is guilty,but you're just trolling when you say she deserves a 2 million hit.She should have to pay the costs of the songs,plus however many times the songs were downloaded off of her computer...which they can't prove.So she should hurting to the tune of 30 bucks,realistically.
And you mean clearly the jury saw the original fine as insufficient,not the court.When it gets to a higher court it will get thrown out,obviously.