Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> 
> 
>>Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes, the copyright owner can sue for the profits that the infringer made
>>>as well as the damage he suffered i.e. the profit he would have made.
>>>You can learn more my reading this section on infringement and remedies:
>>>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Hmm. Only "profits" in terms of actual damages, or statutory damages of "not
>>more than $150,000"? What about companies who allege they lose millions/billions
>>or go bankrupt to piracy, but the pirates claim not to be making much off the
>>work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>>>Sometimes. Mistake of law is not an excuse ("I didn't know it was
>>>>>against the law") but mistake of fact sometimes is. For example, while
>>>>>leaving a restaurant on a rainy day, you take someone else's umbrella
>>>>>out of the umbrella rack while honestly believing it to be your own. You
>>>>>have not committed larceny.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, what does happen when a person is caught knowingly receiving stolen
>>>>property, such as buying a TV out of the trunk of someone's car?
>>>
>>>By statute in most (all?) states, the person who knowingly receives the
>>>stolen goods is liable as if he were the principal thief.
>>
>>
>>Is this why entertainment companies are being so harsh with those they go after
>>for mp3 downloads or file sharing?
> 
> 
> No, because treating file swapping as receiving stolen goods is a loser,
> since copyright infringement is not theft. Also, if I buy a CD/movie and
> then encode it and put it in my share directory, the people who download
> it are making a copy of a product that was legally purchased. For
> receiving stolen goods, first you need goods that have been stolen.
> 
> The entertainment companies are being harsh to make examples of people.

Which was the point I tripped over my own feet trying to make the last 
time this topic came up. We don't treat most copyright infringement as a 
criminal offense, which puts the entertainment industry in a really 
nasty position. With shoplifting, the police at least pretend to care, 
and will run the kid through the police station and try frighten him out 
of repeating it. With major theft of physical goods, they will undertake 
criminal prosecution, which makes winning the later civil case for 
damages much easier. With file swapping, you get kids "infringing" a 
half-million dollars in music, and nothing happening to them unless the 
entertainment industry sues. With physical goods, little Johnny would be 
on the rock-pile, and mom and dad would be locked up as accessories. We 
have placed the burden of law-enforcement on private companies, who have 
to finance the investigation and prosecution on their own behalf, and 
then wonder why they act so ruthlessly. We haven't given them much of a 
choice. The police aren't able to act, the criminal courts aren't able 
to act, the legislatures won't pass corrective legislation to equate 
copyright infringment with theft. Their only option is to press their 
civil cases loud and hard, with as much publicity as possible and 
seeking maximum damages.

KWW