On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material
that
has already been there for three years cannot be subject.
=20 =20 Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement,
and s=
o a
new three years.
{{verify}}{{dubious}}<cough>bullshit</cough>
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+statute+of+limitations
Next time read the rest of the thread before making an ass out of
yourself.
"However, the courts are divided as to how this applies."
http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_stat...
"Some courts hold that you can recover your damages for the entirety of the infringement so long as a lawsuit is filed within 3 years of the last infringing act; others limit damages to those acts which occurred within the three years leading up to the lawsuit."
The courts are divided as to whether or not infringing acts which occurred more than three years ago count, they are *not* divided on the fact that you can recover for damages for those infringing acts which occurred less than three years ago.
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase",
not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".