Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with
it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
Your misconception of law is phenomenal. In some situations the breach of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint by someone with standing.
So it's legal to breach copyright until someone complains? If you steal from an outlaw it's not theft?
One needs to make a distinction between civil and criminal law. The element of wilfullness is key to the finding of criminal infringement. "Breaking the law" can result in punitive penalties. The statutory damages in civil infringement are really there to avoid the complexities of determining actual damages; the plaintiff cannot have both actual and statutory damages in a case.
A person who in good faith publishes material where a reasonable fair use argument can be made is not breaking the law. Other defenses which would exculpate him also exzist.
Ec