Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:54:24AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > > > Negligence is also a crime.
> > >
> > > Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
> > > exists within specific legal contexts, typically those associatied with
> > > guardianship (health or day care workers, parents, etc.)
> > >
> > > Failure to zealously prosecute one's every possible avenue of recourse in
> > > enforcing one's own copyright is not an offense under U.S. law, nor, as far
> > > as I know, anywhere else.
> >
> > But it MAY neutralize the copyright,
>
> You're thinking of patents, not copyrights. Under US law, copyrights
> persist until they expire (now 75 years if held by a natural person, 95
> years if held by a corporation) or are affirmatively abandoned..
Acvtually, I was thinking trademarks: Kleenex for the prime example. The
big issue is collateral estoppel. If there is collateral estoppel in
copyright law, failure to prosecute infringement may disallow you from
ever prosecuting the same type of infringement again.
> > and you should know this.
>
> Actually, I know the contrary, which is demonstrative of your feeble grasp
> of the facts.
>
> > Neutralizing IP fits under the aegis of criminal negligence: the
> > guardianship of salable property is usually sufficent to trigger the
> > criminal statute.
>
> Utterly false. A for-profit corporation that fails to pursue copyright
> violations vis a vis intellectual property it holds might be subject to
> civil lawsuits from shareholders, but I think this falls under securities
> or financial law, not criminal law.
>
> I reiterate: it is not a criminal act to fail to pursue violations of one's
> own copyright.
>
>
--
CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...
John Galt (galt@inconnu.isu.edu)
Reply to: