It just makes me think of going to a Mexican restaurant and saying, "I would like a number three. Yes, the two planemos, tacos, and rice. Oh, oh! And an empinada." Mmm... Planetary body...
Tragic
I've been lurking for a few years on here, and I have finally decided to make an account and participate. I just wanted to respond to clarify what parties can and can not do under the DMCA. Here's the idea: any suit that can be brought by Macrovision is a civil suit, which means that, while it may result in damages or injunctive relief (the DMCA provides for both under section 1203, I believe), cannot land a person in jail. So, while Macrovision may sue the creator of the program for damages and get an injunction to make him stop, it cannot have him criminally prosecuted. Nor is it usually considered correct to say that a person is 'convicted' of a civil offense.
What Macromedia could have done is report him to the FBI for a violation of a federal statute (the DMCA is both a civil and a criminal statute), and then the federal government may bring a case to convict the person of a criminal violation. Or they may decide not to, especially since there probably wasn't a great case against him. In this case, unless he was selling the software, he could not have been successfully prosecuted criminally because the DMCA requires that the DMCA violation be willful (this probably was) and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Since he probably did not get any private financial gain or a commercial advantage, he never faced jail time or fines, just money damages (and even then, probably only compensatory damages and attorneys' fees) and injunctions.
Slashdot Mirror
It just makes me think of going to a Mexican restaurant and saying, "I would like a number three. Yes, the two planemos, tacos, and rice. Oh, oh! And an empinada." Mmm... Planetary body... Tragic
I've been lurking for a few years on here, and I have finally decided to make an account and participate. I just wanted to respond to clarify what parties can and can not do under the DMCA. Here's the idea: any suit that can be brought by Macrovision is a civil suit, which means that, while it may result in damages or injunctive relief (the DMCA provides for both under section 1203, I believe), cannot land a person in jail. So, while Macrovision may sue the creator of the program for damages and get an injunction to make him stop, it cannot have him criminally prosecuted. Nor is it usually considered correct to say that a person is 'convicted' of a civil offense.
What Macromedia could have done is report him to the FBI for a violation of a federal statute (the DMCA is both a civil and a criminal statute), and then the federal government may bring a case to convict the person of a criminal violation. Or they may decide not to, especially since there probably wasn't a great case against him. In this case, unless he was selling the software, he could not have been successfully prosecuted criminally because the DMCA requires that the DMCA violation be willful (this probably was) and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Since he probably did not get any private financial gain or a commercial advantage, he never faced jail time or fines, just money damages (and even then, probably only compensatory damages and attorneys' fees) and injunctions.
Tragic