16 Jul
2010
16 Jul
'10
3:56 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:53 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
it doesn't need to be criminal. i was just getting caught up in your
lead on a jail time suggestion.
the biggest problem with the kind of scheme i'm describing above is
that it relies above all on identifying the distributor/performer. its
already clear that this is fundamentally impossible to do with any
degree of reliability in the internet age.
On Thursday 15 July 2010 19:50:31 you wrote:
IF copyright
was restricted to the creator AND limited in duration to
a single-digit number of years AND utterly non-transferable (even to
next-of-kin) AND intent had to proven THEN i'd say that maybe 6 months
or a year in jail, with options for first offenses and/or parole
and/or scope of damages affecting the sentence?
And why does it *have* to be criminal? Why not civil with proof of damages? (I
could easily live with what you state above as it is way better than what we
have here now and I am having to live with that.