[LINK] Theft, copyright, larceny...

[Glen Turner]

A few comments on various postings in this thread.

Brendan wrote:
> Can you point us to the accounts which list the value of a person's copyright infringed as a loss?

Obviously Stewart can't. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty. In doing
so he accepted the prosecution's figure for damages,  so the accounts
did not need to be produced to the court.

> I assume you can't because the accountants and tax pple don't let these amounts be listed as a loss.

There are plenty of civil damages that are not accepted by the tax
office.

> Perhaps that's because they don't think it is a loss. 

The tax office is not concerned about losses which reduce projected
revenue. That makes sense, otherwise an investor would make a tax
deduction each time interest rates decrease.



Stewart wrote:

> Until someone convinces me that the real value was a trivial 60 cents,
> rather the $60 million dollars claimed (ie +/- $59.99999 million) then it is
> theft.

It isn't theft -- the software companies never had these funds in the
first place and they have no reduction in inventory, so how can they be
stolen?  The damage is a reduction in projected revenue. We've both had
enough to do with accounts to know that this is a slippery notion which
can be adjusted to suit the occasion.

Also, it's very much like an ambit claim. The prosecution needs to put
forward the highest figure available to it, as the work of the defence
is only going to reduce the figure, not increase it.

> Do you people honestly believe that an Australian court allowed him to be
> extradited to the USA on frivolous grounds for a trivial offense ?

Oh come on. The Copyright Act at the time of the offences required
the prosecution to show how Griffiths actions were prejudicial to
the owner of the copyright. This is a high bar -- you need to find
people that will say they were going to buy the product but used
the pirated one instead.  And you need a lot of those for a packaged
software product to get reasonable damages. [That section of the
Copyright Act has since been re-worked.]

So with a prosecution in Australia off the boards the A-G obviously
decided to let the US have an attempt. If the A-G agrees there's
limited review available through the courts for extradition for
copyright breaches since almost all offences now have a penalty
of >12 months. Australia is much more generous in extradition than
other countries (the UK has still not succeeded in extraditing US
nationals who funded the IRA, despite all the 9/11 hysteria).

-- 
 Glen Turner