3 ms·
That is how the law is phrased. However, as I understand it, people have successfully managed to argue that simply receiving a copy of the work as part of the i
by nybble41 8y ago
That is how the law is phrased. However, as I understand it, people have successfully managed to argue that simply receiving a copy of the work as part of the infringement is sufficient "trade" on its own to qualify the infringement as a criminal offense. Under that interpretation there is no effective distinction between civil and criminal infringement.
- DanBC 8y agoPlease link to even a single case where that actually happened. You'll find that either people are monetizing the distribution; or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market. I'd agree that neither of these should be criminal offences, but neither of them involve "simply receiving a copy".
- nybble41 8y ago> or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market Sorry, I heard about the case years ago and don't have a link handy. However, that point by itself would be enough to undermine the original claim that only for-profit distribution is considered criminal.