"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:5qrvm5F11j6imU1@mid.individual.net...
> Perhaps you or Leythos could refer me to a case anywhere in the world
> where a warrant has been used to enter a person's home and examine their
> computer, because they were suspected of infringing copyright on p2p
> systems on a non-commercial basis?
>
> I think you will find that copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a
> criminal one, pretty much everywhere.
This is not necessarily true in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
"The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed
in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in
copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial
benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison
and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by
50%.
Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, copyright infringement for a
noncommercial purpose was apparently not punishable by criminal prosecution,
although noncommercial infringers could be sued in a civil action by the
copyright holder to recover damages. At that time, criminal prosecutions
under the copyright act were possible only when the infringer derived a
commercial benefit from his or her actions. This state of affairs was
underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a
student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly
facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any
commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States vs. LaMacchia
suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to
noncommercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the
"LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make
some noncommercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that
suggestion in the NET Act.
The NET Act amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private
financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even
if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in
prison and up to $250,000 in fines. It also creates a threshold for criminal
liability even where the infringer neither obtained nor expected to obtain
anything of value for the infringement.
The NET Act raised the levels of statutory damages to $750 -- $30,000 per
work (or actual damages or infringer's profits, whichever is greater). In
cases of willful infringement, the act allows individuals to be held civilly
liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed).
The NET Act could be applied to the unauthorized trading of infringing MP3
files, although music file-sharing was not yet widely practiced by 1997. The
infringements of greatest interest to industry at that time were primarily
infringing copies of software."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html
(a) Criminal Infringement.-
(1) In general.- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be
punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was
committed-
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to
members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the
work was intended for commercial distribution.
>
> In my country, raids have been made under fraud legislation (the Oink
> case, which is unlikely to fly in court), and under trading and tax laws
> when companies have been producing or supplying pirate videos, but not for
> simple copying without agreement.
>
> In the US, the RIAA has been subpeonaing ISPs to get user details, and
> then sending the users letters to demand financial penalties or face civil
> court. Some have gone to court, and the courts have ordered the PCs be
> examined, but that is hardly the same thing. http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/g...re-indictments
Web LinuxElectronsT
"Operation Copycat Results in more IndictmentsPublished: Thursday, February
02 2006 @ 11:51 AM CST
Contributed by: Tommy
SAN JOSE - The United States Attorney for the Northern District of
California announced that as part of the ongoing prosecution arising out of
Operation Copycat, a federal grand jury in San Jose returned a
thirteen-count indictment last week charging ten additional individuals with
violations of federal copyright laws. Twenty-five persons have been charged
to date as part of the ongoing investigation and prosecution, and ten have
been convicted.
Based on the indictment, the following ten individuals were each charged
with conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and for violating
the No Electronic Theft Act (known as the "NET Act") for copyright
infringement by electronic means over the Internet:
Matthew Thompson, 22, of Lubbock, Texas
David Siloac, 27, of Clinton Township, Michigan
Johnny Russell, 34, of Spring, Texas
Eric Rolfe, 22, of Columbia, Missouri
Phillip Templeton, 24, of Kingsport, Tennessee
Ali Ghani, 28, of Irvine, California
Matthew Fong, 19, of Miami, Florida
Jose Soler, 30, of Elmburst (Queens), New York
Donovan Kargenian, 31, of El Cajon, California
Gregory Dickman, 25, of Wilmington, North Carolina
Defendant Fong was also charged with two counts of criminal copyright
infringement by distributing a copyrighted work on a computer network, and
aiding and abetting that conduct. These two charges are based on the "Family
Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005," which was enacted on April 27,
2005, and prohibits the infringement of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to
members of the public, where the individual knew or should have known the
work was intended for commercial distribution. The indictment also contains
forfeiture allegations to forfeit computer and other equipment used to
violate the criminal copyright laws. The equipment was seized during a
federal search warrant executed on June 29, 2005.
The charges stem from the recent undercover investigation targeting online
"warez" groups illegally distributing newly-released movies, games, software
and music. "Warez groups" are the "first-providers" of copyrighted works to
the warez underground - the so-called "release" groups that operate as the
original sources for a majority of the pirated works distributed and
downloaded via the Internet.
The ten defendants will be arraigned on the indictment on February 22, 2006
at 2:00 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg in San Jose.
The maximum penalties for conspiring to violated federal copyright law, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for copyright infringement by distributing
a copyrighted work on a computer network, and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2319(d)(2), are five
years in prison and three years of supervised release. The maximum penalties
for violating the NET Act, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B), and 18
U.S.C. § 2319(c)(1), are three years in prison and two years of supervised
release. A maximum fine of $250,000 applies to each offense, and a mandatory
special assessment of $100 applies for each conviction. However, any
sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after
consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute
governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. An indictment only
contains allegations and these defendants, as with all defendants, must be
presumed innocent unless and until convicted.
The other ten convictions in Operation Copycat to date include:
January 9, 2006: Paul Aleman, 25, of Menafee, California, pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement by electronic means,
and copyright infringement by electronic means and aiding and abetting.
January 9, 2006: Philip Kang, 22, of Wayne, New Jersey, admitted engaging in
copyright infringement by electronic means.
December 12, 2005: Mark G. Carter, II, 28, of Azusa, California, pleaded
guilty to one count of violating the NET Act, as charged in the Northern
District of California Case, and to one count of conspiracy to commit
offenses against the United States, as charged in the District of
Connecticut.
December 12, 2005: Jonathan Stanley Golenbock, 22, of Ithaca, New York,
pleaded guilty to one count of violating the NET Act.
November 30, 2005: Nathaniel Lovell, 22, of Boulder, Colorado, an equipment
supplier for the warez sites, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.
November 14, 2005: Chirayu Patel, 23, of Fremont, California, and one of the
site operators for the warez site, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit
criminal copyright infringement and to violating the NET Act.
November 14, 2005: Daniel Van Horn, 32, of Wantagh, NY, pleaded guilty to
violating the NET Act.
October 11, 2005: William Veyna, 34, of Chatworth, California, another site
operator, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit criminal copyright
infringement and to violating the NET Act.
October 3, 2005: Ryan Zeman, 23, of Rohnert Park, California, admitted
violating the NET Act.
September 26, 2005: Curtis Salisbury, 19, of St. Charles, Missouri, pleaded
guilty to two charges under the recently enacted "Family Entertainment and
Copyright Act of 2005," including the first convictions in the country for
using recording equipment to make copies of movies in movie theaters, and
for making a commercially distributed movie available on a computer network
accessible to members of the public, when the individual knew or should have
known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
As part of each plea agreement, each defendant also agreed to forfeit
computer and other equipment that was seized during the federal search
warrants executed on June 29, 2005.
These prosecutions are part of a continuing investigation known locally as
Operation Copycat, which involved the execution of more than 40 searches
nationwide on June 29, 2005. Operation Copycat is the local and largest part
of the coordinated international law enforcement action known as Operation
Site Down, which is targeting online piracy. Mark L. Krotoski is the
Assistant U.S. Attorney from the CHIP Unit who is prosecuting the case,
along with the assistance of Legal Assistants Mimi Lam and Lauri Gomez.
Stephanie M. Hinds is the Assistant U.S. Attorney, along with Alicia Chin,
paralegal, assisting with the asset forfeiture matters on the case."
TB
Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet 
Linear Mode
