Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pedr" data-source="post: 4966834" data-attributes="member: 33464">I think US law confuses the issue here by using acronyms that spell out 'NET THEFT' even where the word 'theft' is not used in the law and (more generally) by allowing the use of significant punitive damages. Those saying 'if we are calling it theft, the state should be prosecuting as a criminal offence' are entirely right. Although that shouldn't preclude a copyright owner seeking to recover compensation for actual loss from the wrongdoer it would remove the punitive aspect from the civil system. I am currently unconvinced that copyright infringement is a wrong against the peace of the state, unlike physical theft, but that's a decision each jurisdiction has to make for itself. The US has said that willful copyright infringement for personal financial gain and copyright infringement of $1,000 worth of material in a 180 day period are criminal offences, while other copyright infringment (of the materials we're interested in here) are not. I'm sure I've posted this here before, but I doubt anyone would object to a legal regime which forced copyright infringers to pay compensation for lost earnings due to the infringement. What raises eyebrows - and questions about the proper use of the private law system - are awards which seem to pay no relation to the loss of profit or earnings from the infringement.</blockquote>