| |||||||||||||
The SquelchingThe SquelchingPosted Nov 15, 2012 16:09 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)Parent article: RTS and the GPL
The only disturbing thing from all this is that there has been a lot of public-list and back-channel pressure to squelch the public discussion about this issue. I'm pretty convinced that I'll never get to see the facts of the matter because of that. BTW, these situations aren't uncommon when an alleged GPL-violating product is expensive. The few customers that buy it don't really have an incentive to report the violation, so the violation continues. For example, I know of a very expensive home automation system that I'm pretty sure comes with no-source-nor-offer, but the product comes with custom installation and costs tens of thousands of USD, and I don't know anyone wealthy enough to have bought it to report the violation officially, so I'm left with just my suspicions. I'm a true believer, though, in the USA concept of probable cause. Some criminals go free because there's no probable cause to believe they've done wrong. While copyright infringement is (and should always be) a civil matter, an analogous concept applies: suspicion of a violation isn't proof, and while I suspect a violation in lots of cases, I only pursue compliance matters when I believe the evidence available is strong enough that it “passes” the Rule 11(a)(b)(3) requirements of civil procedure in the USA. That means that some GPL violators get away with violations because no one who has witnessed the violation will come forward with facts. It's a pity, but it happens more than you might suspect. I certainly rather that scenario than than a BSA-style police state.
(Log in to post comments)
Copyright infringement is a civil affair Posted Nov 22, 2012 19:19 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Not where I am!
Okay, if I engage in copyright infringement it is purely a civil matter (private individual for private use), but if downloaded copyright material wholesale from the net, and sold it, I could be jailed for it!
And actually, I think that's right. Commercial copyright infringement is a criminal offence with hefty fines and jail sentences. And while I may think the copyright regime is too strict, people who flout the system should face criminal penalties.
Cheers,
Copyright infringement is a civil affair Posted Nov 22, 2012 20:29 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] I don't agree that criminal penalties are appropriate for copyright infringement, and I've said so in public and directly the USA government. While I believe violating the GPL is morally wrong, I don't believe that everything that's morally wrong must be a crime.
Copyright infringement is a civil affair Posted Nov 23, 2012 9:46 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Why should reducing a company's potential profit by an infinitesimal amount result in taxpayer-funded jail time? Is jailing you likely to reduce the future probability of your reoffending? (No.) Is the crime so heinous that you should be kept off the streets lest you threaten the public with your foul crime again? (No.) Is the crime so hideous (like e.g. littering, or breathing loudly) that the Daily Mail is calling for the imprisonment of all dangerous scum who do it in order that the little childrun not be threatened and society get its vengeance jollies? (No, and there are damn few things you can say *that* about.)
Doesn't seem like a crime worthy of imprisonment, or indeed being a crime at all, to me.
|
|||||||||||||