Re: Copyright Question
"Brian Thomas Sniffen" <email@example.com> wites
> "Christopher Priest" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Why should anyone but the source be "required" to keep or distribute
> > code when it is freely available from Debian. The web was not
> > available when
> Debian may not be around forever. Many embedded devlopers don't
> publicize which distribution they derive from.
I think that says it all.
> > Law is about damages, not about forcing people to do what you want..
> No, in the case of copyright law it is explicitly about granted
True, damages is only civil law and copyright has some statutory and
criminal components. It is only the criminal law that can be used to enforce
making people do what is "right" otherwise it is about damages.
No matter how tearful or right, a spouse cannot successfully sue the other
spouse to keep them in the marriage. They can only sue for damages.
Copyright law in the US http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
While the remedies can be harsh,
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html I'd see any action going the
way of discussions first and then correction. If it actually went to court,
I'd expect a claim for statutory damages as there are no real damages. I'd
predict the $200 fine just to allow an appeal if the judge found this an
interesting case. I don't see how you can classify his actions as willful
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or
prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees
will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only
an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
In countries like England the criminal complaint would also start with
discussions and then he could correct the problem.
I believe the EU did not make copyright criminal.