Who's responsible for the copyright violation?

[X] WRONG AGAIN Since February 13, 2003


http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mynafSent.htm

First Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Criminal Sentencing in California Involving
More than 4,500 Bootlegged Video Tapes

Three Others Have Recently Been Convicted for Aiding and Abetting the DMCA violation

SACRAMENTO  United States Attorney John K. Vincent announced today that MOHSIN MYNAF, 37, of Vacaville, California, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge David F. Levi to 24 months in federal prison, a three year term of supervised release, a $1,600 special assessment, and also ordered to pay approximately $201,738.70 in restitution for engaging in six counts of criminal copyright infringement; six counts of trafficking in counterfeit labels; and one count of circumventing a technological measure that protects a copyright work (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act”). As part of his plea agreement, MYNAF agreed to the forfeiture of the equipment he used to commit the copyright violations, the forfeiture of $5,000, and the destruction of a substantial amount of property used to commit the copyright violations.

So...it's okay to steal it if you dislike the company being stolen from?

If you keep talking about it, DISNEY WILL HEAR YOU!!!! Wear your mouse suit quietly (like a mouse) and enjoy it while you can. A corporation doesnt have to spend a penny to shut somebody down, all a mega corporation has to do is whisper in the ear of LL and LL will make your mouse suit disappear!

Good grief, there is SO MUCH misinformation flying around in this thread. Please, people, if you DON'T KNOW, DON'T POST BS.

Educate thyselves: http://www.copyright.gov

..and before anyone else says it, US Copyright Law is mostly in harmony with Copyright Laws of most of the other parts of the world, because there are Copyright Law treaties which exist to do just that. Again, educate thyselves: http://www.wipo.org



According to Copyright Law, BOTH of you are liable for infringement. The creator is liable for criminal charges in addition to civil penalties.



While your first point is correct, I want to reiterate this: Copyright infringement is NOT "theft".



Simple enough. Is the seller the Walt Disney Company? No? Then ask him/her/it to produce a license to create and sell the Walt Disney Company's intellectual property. Are you supposed to ask for everything? If you have any doubt about it being the property of seller, or the seller having a license to sell it, absolutely you should. That said, even if you don't ask, it doesn't make you any less of an infringer if it turns out the seller did NOT own or have a license to sell it. It may prevent you from *willful* infringement claims by the Copyright holder, but you may still be sued. Ignorance is not and never has been a guaranteed defense.



If not you, then who? If you buy expensive stereos for a huge discount off the tailgate of some bumpkin on the side of the road, you think your ignorance will be any defence when the police come to reclaim said stolen property? Yeah, they don't give you your money back, either. Receiving stolen property is still a crime, and you can be charged for it.

Same principle still applies to copyright infringement. You are the most responsible party to your actions, as far as the Law is concerned. If you infringe someone's copyright, however unknowingly and unintentionally, you still can be held liable for said infringement. The degree of liability would be determined in court, and you *might* get off with a warning (and the loss of any infringed copies of the property in question), or you may get ganked for quite a sum of cash.

How do you avoid that? Make sure you deal with reputable companies and people who aren't criminals. It's never a guarantee, but if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. In this case, I think it qualifies.



INcorrect.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p





Sorry, but also INcorrect.



Copyright Law provides for both Civil AND Criminal penalties for violations.

Disnenjas? Now that's scary!

"In cases of



, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation."

Seems like a clear indication of where the civil/criminal line is drawn.

There's another aspect to this- the OP is wearing this stuff in the open in SL, that makes them a publisher of infringing content. I don't believe it's illegal to own an infringing work- the law is concerned with the creation and distribution (that's why filesharers get stung- because of the uploading, and therefore publishing).

Of course everyone who rezzes infringing material in SL is a publisher, and liable to be sued.

I never thought of rezzing 'whatever random object' as publishing. Interesting thought.

I believe that unfortunately, at the moment you would be responsible even if you innocently bought the Mickey Mouse avatar (which could be done innocently if you believed the creator had licensed the character).

As others have mentioned this does have the effect of introducing deep distrust into the exchange of certain types of content, including both avatars and textures.

If you think that it should just be the seller who is responsible, please vote on this JIRA to amend the TOS to require those who sell things in SL to insulate their customers against copyright claims regarding the sold item: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-1049

Mostly, though profit does not have to made for it to be criminal. Hence:






Well, I think the terms would more be "user of infringed content" via "displaying the work". Publish implies the act prior, up to, and including distribution.



Yes, it is still illegal to own an infringing work. When you became a party to the infringement via being the buyer (or simply the receiver), you broke the law as much as the seller, as far as the law is concerned. Filesharers also get ganked for downloading as well as uploading. Both acts are still considered "distribution", and are treated similarly to the concept of selling and receiving stolen property. The difference is in how it is treated in court, and what specific penalties may be levied. However, don't think for a moment that simply downloading that song and owning it is legal. They still can come after you, if they know about it, and the government can seize the copy and destroy it or order its seizure or destruction, if you are found in violation.

If that's a general question, the answer is, sometimes it's hard to know.

But with something like a Disney character, it's a pretty safe bet that if you didn't buy it from Disney, it's stolen goods.

I'll second what Talarus said concerning all the misinformation here. It's clear that copyright infringement can be criminal in some cases, but I think it best to refrain from speculating as to whether anything in this particular case constitutes a criminal copyright violation.

The term 'liability' is being thrown around loosely. From a legal perspective, liability usually (perhaps always?) means that one party can be compelled to pay something to another. In this case, I'm not at all sure the buyer is liable in that sense. It's even less likely that the copyright owners would seek such payment. Nevertheless, the buyer can be asked to give up the infringing material. If the buyer refuses, it then becomes more likely that the copyright owner would seek both money and a court order requiring the buyer to stop. So what I'm saying is that the buyer has legal responsibility, but may not have any liability (yet), and may not have done anything criminal, but the seller could be in a different situation. (I say "may" because, as usual, IANAL applies.)

The moral responsibility is a different subject altogether. Sure, there are many cases where it's unreasonable to expect a consumer to check whether a seller is a legitimate licensee. But in this particular case, it seems either disingenuous or ignorant to use that argument. Disney is a well-known brand, and does a good job of ensuring their copyright, and more importantly trademark notices appear on all their products. It should be obvious that anything being sold without such notices is questionable. This has nothing to do with their aggressiveness in enforcing their rights; the same is true for any other popular characters (e.g. Warner Brothers or Hanna-Barbera characters).

Finally, I'm surprised that the thread has gotten this far without anyone mentioning the trademark violations. It strikes me that that's the much more serious violation, at least for the seller. The seller is not only using stolen material, but is leveraging the brand name to make sales. It's this difference between selling this versus selling some unknown artist's copyrighted but unexceptional design as a texture.

"1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —"

I think the key word there is "willfully" *





*The usual IANAL disclaimer applies

Yes. Willfully downloading a song. Willfully copying a book. Willfully accepting a copy of a protected work (yes, that does imply foreknowledge that it was indeed a copy, or at least having any doubt as to its authenticity).

Would you please cite the speciic law you are referring to, and give a citation to a case where someone was prosecuted for merely owning an infringing copy (as opposed to making a copy)?

I'm not in anyway convinced that a person who buys a product legitimately is liable. In the case of Napster, everyone knew Napster was illegal but it was free. How do I know the dress I bought yesterday has textures that were original or stolen? How do I know the person who bought the sim I'm on isin't getting money from drugs to support it, how do I know whether Linden Labs themselves didn't steal the code they used to make the game?

It's not just about the Mickey Mouse outfit it's about anything purchased in the game.

I thought that LL were the publishers and we were contributors; like people who write articles for a magazine for example.

Copyright Law provides for restricting the right of distribution to the copyright holder. If you "came into the possession of" an infringing copy, you have participated, potentially unwittingly, in infringing the right of distribution. It may not be willful infringement, but it still is infringement. There is no direct quote of copyright law for this specific instance, outside of the right to distribute clause itself, and remediation for it.

There are any number of cases where businesses, even small ones, have been ganked hard for possession of a copyrighted piece of software installed on their computer systems. Many of them supposedly "didn't know" that the copies were infringing, yet the BSA was able to extract settlements from and judgments against them, often with damages. If you want a specific case, there are plenty you can find from the BSA themselves, and related horror stories from Google.

When you cite the business aspect, these installations were done by someone inside the company. It's not like they went out and purchased a Microsoft product from Wal-Mart only to find out somehow Wal-Mart created a pirated copy. It's completely irrelevant.

:\ now i completely don't follow you... you knew enough to bother asking here in the forums, so now you want to reject the answer??

I havn't seen an answer only theories.

Yes, it is perfectly morally acceptable to steal from a company _I_ dislike.

Unfortunately the antiquated legal system has not yet caught up with this simple, and, I would say, self-evident, principle; the "Ordinal Clause". Curse the injustices that we are forced to labour under!

Not necessarily. Sometimes the equipment WAS purchased with software already installed on it. In addition, sometimes "fake" copies of the software were purchased and installed from seemingly legitimate outlets.

Even still, it is not irrelevant at all, since the BSA didn't care where it came from, simply that the companies in question were in possession of it, and had no way to prove it was valid. Some of them were ganked for software they didn't even know they had! That's why the software audit business has been booming. I've done several of them for my customers myself.

You repeatedly claim is that mere "posession" of an unauthorized copy is illegal, and you suggest that a law against "receiving stolen merchanside" is in play. I don't believe that, because the law says that copyrights are about the making or distribtion of copies. I asked for a citation of law and an example a case.

In response, you merely reiterate your claim, then say something about distribution, then say you can't quote any specific law. For your example, you talk about some companies posessing illegitimate copies of software and suggest that they were "ganked hard". I think you misunderstand the law in those cases.

Different copy rights attach to different kinds of works, and computer software has different copyrights than, for example, the pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that we are talking about for Second Life avatars. There is a copy right for computer programs (only) about controlling its use on a computer. I believe that the examples you allude to are cases where companies were not merely posessing copies, but actually using those copies on a computer. (Moreover, in most of those cases, the company itself had made the illegal copies and knew full well what they were doing.) But it's irrelevent anyway, since textures are not computer programs.

I don't buy your theory that merely by coming into posession of an unauthorized copy, the receipient has infringed.

I'm no lawyer or anything, so I sure could be wrong. If so, I'd like a specific example to educate me!

Any of the MPAA/RIAA lawsuits where people were sued for downloading pirated songs or movies.

If they couldn't sue the end consumer, then you could download as many illegal free MP3s as you wanted, and only the sites you downloaded from could be punished.

However, in Second Life it's less reasonable for people to know what is and is not copyrighted, thus my JIRA request.