[LINK] On-the-spot copyright fines only for illegal traders?

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:08:27PM +1100, Roger Clarke wrote:
> Ruddock's Letter to the Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald
> Thursday 16 November 2006
> http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/11/15/1163266633263.html
> 
> You reported that "copyright offences will now attract criminal 
> penalties" because of the Government's proposed copyright amendments 
> ("Soon your recordings will be a crime", November 14).
> 
> This is misleading. Copyright offences already attract criminal 
> penalties. The Government is introducing a new penalty of 
> "on-the-spot fines" for existing offences, instead of court fines or 
> jail terms, to provide practical enforcement options. The fines are 
> aimed at market-stall operators selling pirated copyright material, 
> not to "trick" consumers.
> 
> Philip Ruddock Attorney-General, Canberra

still doesn't explain why what should be a CIVIL issue (copyright
infringement) is treated as a criminal offence. it's a free gift for
the copyright industries, allowing them to externalise (i.e. make the
public pay) for what should be their civil enforcement expenses....and
because they aren't paying the bill, there's no disincintive to go after
personal, non-commercial infringers.

with any other civil case (including stuff that SHOULD be criminal,
like small-scale conmen and fraudsters), it's up to the victim to
institute civil proceedings at their own expense....meaning that it's
not worthwhile doing unless a) there's a very good chance of winning,
and b) the amount in dispute is at least $5000 or so.

anything less than that, and there's basically no penalty for con jobs.

so, why do multi-billion dollar businesses like record companies get the
public to pay for their civil cases when the public can't?


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)