Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 6/3/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)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_sta…
"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.ht…
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."
http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.html
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.