HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:29:04 GMT

In article <bhayden.721924831@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>1.      Do you read the law to require 10 copies _and_ $2,500?
>        Surprising there is debate on this issue.

There should be no debate.  Copying a single piece of software
worth $5,000 would not be a felony, nor would be making 100 copies
of a $10 piece of software.  This is based on not only my reading of
it, but our committee's discussions since the bill was introduced,
and our committee's discussions with legislative staff.

>2.      What is the criminal intent required ? Is this a general
>        intent or specific intent crime ?

No criminal intent needed.  Willfully making the copies for "gain",
but nothing about criminal intent.

>3.      Does the law apply to all copyright infringement ? Or
>        just of cases where exact copies are being made ?

Since the law only mentions "copying", I would guess that some company
would be happy to go after someone who 'copies the A/V copyright'
of a piece of software.  The intent was definitely to be making
exact copies, though.

I hadn't thought about that aspect before (having only considered
making an exact copy), but if this law had been in effect long ago,
I could imagine that Apple would have gone after Microsoft on felony
charges for "copying" their copyrighted software.  A bit farfetched,
but...

-----
Member of the IEEE USA's Intellectual Property Committee

-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2308 comp.org.eff.talk:7165 misc.int-property:1487
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:20:52 GMT
Keywords: copyright infringement felony

In article <1992Nov19.201021.28781@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>>More importantly, in my opinion, is that while this discussion may
>>be fun, there's really no likelihood that anyone is going to be
>>sued by a recording company for any home taping.  If anyone knows
>>of a case, I'd sure like to hear about it.
>
>It happened in video recording.  When Disney and Universal sued Sony
>in the Betamax case, the actual list of defendants was:
>
>	Sony,
>	Sony Corporation of America,
>	serveral stores that sold Betamax units,
>	the advertising company that handled Betamax advertisement,
>	*and*
>	William Griffiths, a person who used a Betamax.
>
>Disney and Universal didn't ask for any damages from Griffiths, and he
>didn't actually appear or have an attorney, so it isn't that big a deal that
>he was included.  Still, I wonder if he was told this *before* being included,
>or did he wake up one morning to be greeted by a process server serving
>him with a suit from two giant corporations?  If so, he must have had quite
>an interesting time until finding out that his presence was mostly
>symbolic!
>--Tim Smith

One has to wonder by what methodology did the Disney & Universal folks
identify Mr. Griffiths in the first place?  I'd bet he was a "willing"
party on the side of Disney & Universal.  That is, he bought a betamax
and then did the copying, he then provides the "evidence" to Disney
& Universal knowing he is just the "test case example."  He might
even have been a Disney or Universal employee.  Anyone know for sure.
I have the supreme court opinion, wonder if it's mentioned in that.

In any case, at least for video, the court have us all permission
to "time shift" to our hearts content :-)

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: btwalker@eos.ncsu.edu (BRIAN THOMAS WALKER)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Originator: btwalker@c00091-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Reply-To: btwalker@eos.ncsu.edu (BRIAN THOMAS WALKER)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:24:15 GMT


In article <bhayden.721924831@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
writes:
|>Xref: taco misc.legal.computing:2229 comp.org.eff.talk:11249
|>misc.int-property:1450
|>Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
|>Path: taco!gatech!purdue!yuma!csn!teal!bhayden
|>From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
|>Subject: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
|>Message-ID: <bhayden.721924831@teal>
In article <bhayden.721924831@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
writes:
|>Xref: taco misc.legal.computing:2229 comp.org.eff.talk:11249
|>misc.int-property:1450
|>Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
|>Path: taco!gatech!purdue!yuma!csn!teal!bhayden
|>From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
|>Subject: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
|>Message-ID: <bhayden.721924831@teal>
|>Summary: S893 made copyright infringement a felony. Need comments
|>Keywords: copyright infringement felony
|>Sender: news@csn.org (news)
|>Nntp-Posting-Host: teal.csn.org
|>Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
|>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 09:40:31 EST
|>Lines: 39
|>
|>On October 29, 1992, President Bush signed S 893 amending 18 U.S.C.
|>Section 2319, making copyright infringement a possible felony if
|>        "the offense consists of the the reproduction or
|>distribution,
|>        during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or
|>        phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
|>        retail value of more than $2,500".
|>
|>The Rocky Mountain Computer and Technology Forum will be discussing
|>this new law on 11/20 especially as it applies to software copyrights.
|>|>I am one of the panelists in the forum, and need some help. I am an
|>|>attorney whose practice is limited to intellectual property
|>matters.
|>This means amoung other things that I have no criminal law
|>background.

[...]

|>Thanks,
|>
|>Bruce E. Hayden
|>Attorney at Law
|>(303) 758-8400
|>bhayden@csn.org
|>

	Could anyone inform me as to the statute of limitations 
concerning copyright infringment?  e.i. how long after it occurred
can they prosecute for it?

thanks...
	-btwalker@eos.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:39:47 GMT

In article <16mz02jB2cAI01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.135827.12834@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, 
>whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>> I suspect that the courts, if a case ever was tried, would define
>> "private financial gain" as meaning some way in which the
>> individual "added" to his/her monetary savings. 
>
>Bill, I agree with this comment (see my reply to Glenn), but,

but...

In 1976, the copyright act changed the mens rea requirement to
"... for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
Which is the way it is still worded.

I still maintain that if I can save myself a thousand dollars,
that I definitely have achieved some advantage which I would
think is a gain.  

If a company did it, saving ten thousand dollars, that would
definitely be of commercial advantage.  Why then, if you
personally do the same thing would it not be of private financial
gain?  If I do not spend the money I have gained, haven't I?????



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:36:45 GMT

tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>"The mens rea requirement serves to leave outside the reach of the
>criminal law losing parties in ordinary business disputes such
>as those involving reverse engineering of computer programs or
>contract disputes over the scope of licenses.  Felony liability
>is not the result of every unauthorized reproduction or distribution...
>First, infringement must be established.  Next, the Government must prove
>that the infringement was done with the requisite mens rea.  Unless both 
>these requirements are met, no criminal liability -- mesdemeanor or
>felony -- will lie, regardless of the number of unauthorized copies or
>phonorecords that have been reproduced or distributed.  In cases where
>civil liability is unclear -- whether because the law is unsettled, or
>intend to establish criminal liability."

If you have the entire legislative history, then you saw the comment
(I think by the I.P. subcommittee) that certain justices (Scalia)
impart little to legislative history.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:32:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.082904.16242@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>No criminal intent needed.  Willfully making the copies for "gain",
>but nothing about criminal intent.

Glenn, the requirement that the person be willfully making copies for
gain is in fact a criminal-intent requirement.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2288 comp.org.eff.talk:7140 misc.int-property:1473
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:10:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov19.201021.28781
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>More importantly, in my opinion, is that while this discussion may
>be fun, there's really no likelihood that anyone is going to be
>sued by a recording company for any home taping.  If anyone knows
>of a case, I'd sure like to hear about it.

It happened in video recording.  When Disney and Universal sued Sony
in the Betamax case, the actual list of defendants was:

	Sony,
	Sony Corporation of America,
	serveral stores that sold Betamax units,
	the advertising company that handled Betamax advertisement,
	*and*
	William Griffiths, a person who used a Betamax.

Disney and Universal didn't ask for any damages from Griffiths, and he
didn't actually appear or have an attorney, so it isn't that big a deal that
he was included.  Still, I wonder if he was told this *before* being included,
or did he wake up one morning to be greeted by a process server serving
him with a suit from two giant corporations?  If so, he must have had quite
an interesting time until finding out that his presence was mostly
symbolic!

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Summary: S893 made copyright infringement a felony. Need comments
Keywords: copyright infringement felony
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:40:31 GMT

On October 29, 1992, President Bush signed S 893 amending 18 U.S.C.
Section 2319, making copyright infringement a possible felony if
        "the offense consists of the the reproduction or distribution,
        during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or
        phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a
        retail value of more than $2,500".

The Rocky Mountain Computer and Technology Forum will be discussing
this new law on 11/20 especially as it applies to software copyrights. 
I am one of the panelists in the forum, and need some help. I am an 
attorney whose practice is limited to intellectual property matters.
This means amoung other things that I have no criminal law background.

What would be helpful are your comments on the following:
1.      Do you read the law to require 10 copies _and_ $2,500?
        Surprising there is debate on this issue.

2.      What is the criminal intent required ? Is this a general
        intent or specific intent crime ?

3.      Does the law apply to all copyright infringement ? Or
        just of cases where exact copies are being made ?

4.      How does the answer to #2 effect the answer to #3 ?
        In other words, how does the intent requirement help
        determine what copyright infringement is covered ?

5.      Comments on any other issues relevant to the new law.

If you are going to be in Colorado this Friday, November 20, 1992
and would like to attend, call Dr. John Soma, at the University
of Denver Law School, (303) 871-6295. Everyone is welcome.

Thanks,

Bruce E. Hayden
Attorney at Law
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: DOS Format: Does it infringe Copywrite Laws?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:35:19 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov19.172309.20014@panix.com> oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>No, this is not quite right.  Assuming we are only talking about
>copyright here (not patent, not trade secrets, etc) then distributing
>does not give rise to infringement.  What gives rise to infringement
>is the copying, which be definition takes place prior to distribution.

Carl, sir, you are confusing me greatly here.  Consider the following:

17 U.S.C Sec. 106

"[T]he owner of copyright . . . has exclusive rights to do and to authorize
any of the following: . . . (3) to DISTRIBUTE [emphasis added] copies or
phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer
of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending . . . ."

17 U.S.C. Sec 501(a):

"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner as provided by sections 106 through 118 . . . is an infringer of
the copyright."

Reading these together, it sure sounds to me like unauthorized distribution
of copyrighted material is infringement.  Am I missing something here?

-Steve Barber
-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.

Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc
From: niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: A Canadian Asks a Question
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:04:16 GMT

In <1992Nov17.025752.7250@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <62zY02rx2bOE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>>I'm surprised that most states don't have a ballot requirement that a party 
>>may not place a candidate on the ballot who has already been placed by 
>>another party, i.e., a one party-per-candidate rule.  Perhaps some do; I've 
>>never looked into it.

>I can't imagine that that would be Constitutional.

You'd be surprised.  Or maybe not.  *I'm* surprised at some of the
ridiculous (IMO) restrictions on ballot access that the Supreme Court
allows.

>At any rate, it would lead to disastrous results.  What happens when
>the American Vegetarian Party beats the Democrats to nominating Clinton?

In the same vein, after the Gulf War when Bush had 115% approval
ratings, or whatever, there was talk that what the Democrats should do
was nominate Bush as their presidential candidate also, but nominate
their own vice president.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Berman Response to State Department Report on Clinton/Perot Files
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:21:31 GMT

Here is a press release from U.S. Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.)

 Berman Response to State Department Report on Clinton/Perot Files
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Graham Cannon of the Office of Rep. Howard Berman,
          202-225-4695

   WASHINGTON, Nov. 18  -- U.S. Rep. Howard L. Berman
(D-Calif.), chairman of the House subcommittee with oversight
jurisdiction over the State Department made the following statement
with regard to the State Department's report on the handling of the
Clinton/Perot passport files:

   "This report is a beginning -- not an end -- to the investigation.
Many issues remain to be addressed.
   "We have learned that high officials of the State Department --
without compunction -- turned their agency into an opposition
research arm of the Republican National Committee.  This would be
wrong in any federal agency, but has special gravity with regard to
the diplomatic arm of our government.
  "By invading the privacy of Bill Clinton and his mother for the
purpose of influencing a presidential election, these officials
committed a serious abuse of governmental power.
   "Unaddressed by this report are many larger questions of privacy
rights.  This incident has taught us that individual Americans have
little protection from the prying eyes and ears of snooping
bureaucrats.
   "The revelation that personal FBI surveillance files on certain
'politically prominent' individuals were stashed away by the State
Department raises many disturbing questions: Who decided which files
to retain?  For what reasons were they kept?  How was this
iformation to be used?  There exist, apparently, few protections to
prevent renegade bureaucrats from misusing State Department files.
   "The report confirms the existence of an extensive State
Department telephone monitoring system capable of listening to calls
made from or to department officials.  Citizens of the United States
call the State Department to discuss highly private and sensitive
matters.  They have a right to know that the privacy of their calls
will be respected.
   "I am greatly disturbed by the revelations of this report: that
government officials may easily subvert the basic privacies that
Americans expect their government to protect.
   "It is clear that adequate safeguards do not yet exist to protect
American citizens from desperate individuals whose political agendas
compel them to trample on rights and to abuse their government
positions and powers.
   "Sen. Kerry, who chairs the corresponding Senate subcommittee, and
I will be asking the GAO to widen its investigation to include these
questions.  When we have learned all the facts, we will take
legislative action to safeguard against a repeat of such abuses."
 -30-
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:30:33 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Why do I suspect that the Supreme Court just wanted to teach this
>guy a lesson about "wasting" their time?

That's a good question, Clayton.  Why do you suspect this?  There is
nothing in the opinion that addresses it, though many a case has turned
on the conservation of judicial resources.  Keep in mind that the SC
only hears cases it decides to; the grant of certiorari is wholly
discretionary.

A better guess as to why the case addressed homosexual sodomy specifically
might be that Eisenstadt v. Baird had already extended the privacy right
found in Griswold to non-married couples, on equal protection grounds.
Homosexuals are not, alas, a very well protected class when it comes
to EP analyses.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
From: katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Call For Papers: _Temple Pol & Civ Rts L. Rev._
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:58:58 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

The _Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review_ is a relatively	
new journal currently looking for articles on rights issues both	
"conservative" or "liberal" in nature.		

Submissions must be made in both 1) wordperfect disk format, and
double spaced manuscript , preferably in the Courier 10 typeface.
Footnotes should be numbered consequetivel and follow the	
15th ed. of the "Blue Book", _A Uniform System of Citation_	

you may e-mail katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu about submission 
questions.

The _Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review_
1719 Noth Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
215-787-5268

we currently are publishing twice a year.
we look forward to all your submissions.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and Homosexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:15:49 GMT

In article <13239@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
writes:

>Why do I suspect that the Supreme Court just wanted to teach this
>guy a lesson about "wasting" their time?

Becuase you are a phony libertarian?  If that is what they thought,
why did they accept the case in the first place?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: title insurance
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov19.1297.20492@execnet>, hilary.miller@execnet.com (hilary 
miller) writes:
>           No, the title of an unconvicted accused person is not for-
>           feitable.  Check your title 18, U.S.C.

Hilary,

I assume Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) only cover forfeiture in 
criminal cases.  There's also civil forfeiture, in which property is siezed 
as a result of an in rem civil proceeding, which doesn't require a criminal 
conviction.

I don't have a cite handy, what I know of this is hearsay from the papers. :-)

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: misc.legal