Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
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.
"Here's how limitations works in copyright cases. A complaint is filed in 2005. Under what circumstances may plaintiff collect damages for acts of infringement that began in 2000 and continued into 2005? (If the infringement began in 2000 but stopped in 2001, a suit brought in 2005 is untimely and no recovery is possible). All circuits permit recovery reaching back to 2002."
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/statute-of-limitations-part-one.htm...
I'm sorry to admit having done a bit of homework on this before replying. :-P Your quotation is grossly out of context, and what follows puts a serious shadow on your position.
Aside from tolling doctrines, when does a claim for infringement "accrue"? There are two basic approaches, violation accrual and discovery accrual. Violation accrual runs the limitations period from when infringement first occurred, regardless of whether plaintiff knew of the infringement or could have known of it. Violation accrual's value is certainty. Discovery accrual runs from when a reasonable person in plaintiff's position knew or should have known of facts which would support a claim of infringement. Discovery accrual's value is fairness to plaintiffs.
Courts have historically used discovery accrual in copyright infringement actions. That may be a thing of the past. The Supreme Court has been extremely critical of discovery accrual as of late. In TRW, Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), Justice Ginsburg noted the Court had only approved of it in two situations, latent disease and medical malpractice. Justices Scalia and Thomas went further, calling discovery accrual "bad wine of a recent vintage." If so, the drek continues. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its commitment to discovery accrual in copyright cases, Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22131 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2004). Polar Bear didn't cite TRW, though, relying on an earlier circuit copyright case. Polar Bear makes my point about relying on copyright decisions to the exclusion of trends in general law.
A notable exception is Auscape International v. National Geographic Society, 71 USPQ2d 1874 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2004). Judge Lewis Kaplan, in an exhaustive opinion citing TRW and the 1957 legislative history, held that it is "strikingly clear that Congress intended to adopt a three-year limitations period running from the date of infringement, as a discovery rule would have defeated its overriding goal of certainty." Auscape is a very good indication that reliance on past precedent in the area may be a big mistake.
In the second part of his essay Patry talks about the recovery of rights, and the remedial role of copyright legislation. Thus, if one of our jokers sought to recover his rights from the time that he issues a claim he could, but that would not have the effect of recovering damages for past infringements.
This whole discussion seems to highlight the extend to which some of our colleagues have taken copyright paranoia. It has already been stated that a person seeking relief for infringement of his copyrights on the part of BJAODN would need to admit that he was the one to have made such idiotic contents. He would also need to show where the copyrighted text was taken from, something that he can't do unless he has access to the deleted original article; if he was a common vandal he doesn't have access to much of anything. Maybe he'll start looking for evidence that the material was cached on his hard drive, but that ceases to work when he remembers that he made his submission at some time before he last blew out that hard drive.
If he can establish that the idiocy was his he will need to register his copyright before he can carry on with his law suit. At that point the infringer can use the laches argument, and if it ever gets that far we always have the ever-popular fair use claim in our back pocket.
So tell me: How many of our idiots would be capable and willing to go through all that?
"The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years for both civil and criminal lawsuits. This means that if somebody infringes your copyright, you must bring a lawsuit within three years of the infringing act. If your bring a suit more than three years after the infringement began, you may only be permitted to recover three years worth of damages."
I would question the credibility of a site that can't even get a simple fact straight. Section 507(a) clearly says five years for criminal infringement. There is significant difference in the wording of the two clauses, but at least the two time periods are clear. I should also add that this reference deals with the more rarified atmosphere of music copyrights.