Copyright and jurisdictions (was: GPL License with clause for Web use?)

[MJ Ray]

simo <simo.sorce at xsec.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: [...]
> > In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has 
> > negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now 
> > a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The 
> > copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.
>
> Can you point me at proof of this claim?

In England, I'd point at Section 107A, Chapter VI "Remedies for
Infringement", Part I "Copyright" of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (as amended) which states:

  "It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to
  enforce within their area the provisions of section 107."
  http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250424

Section 107 is "Criminal liability for making or dealing with
infringing articles, &c."

So it's worse here than Ben Finney suggests: no-one need even request
that the state prosecutes.

The only saving grace for us is that the above is written in our law,
but has not yet been activated.  However, I think that will only take
a statement by a minister, not a full legislature vote, and I believe
many state agencies are acting as if it has (as is their choice).

Agents even complain bitterly when they start trying to prosecute
copiers and are told that a general public licence has been issued.
See, for example, Gervase Markham's article in the Times last year:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article733264.ece
and follow-up at
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/02/trading_standards_followup.html

So, in England, the free software gamekeepers are funding the
proprietary poachers!  This is part of a growing trend of
establishment of private monopolies, a series of "New Enclosures",
also covering such things as gene technology and private public
spaces, which I have been speaking about publicly since 2004 at least.

We need to take a two-pronged approach: firstly, try to reverse this
establishment; secondly, while it exists, use it to fund enforcement
of free software licences (thereby diverting funds from BSA work).

> [...] The
> idea not to release authorship publicly is to avoid getting bothered.
> But proof is needed to be able to get down wannabe fake owners.

However, no downstream licensee would be able to verify that they had
permission to use/adapt/copy it, which could be a problem for them and
would almost certainly have a "chilling effect" on use.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/