A Nature article some years ago mentioned she has no assets in the United States. The plaintiffs are therefore unlikely to ever collect any of the $15 million in damages.
I'd love to visit the US sometime, but right now I'd rather not go there for the reasons you mentioned. The only exception would be if my job required it.
I think she lives in Russia now, so no. If not that, it's Kazakhstan, of which I don't know whether it has such a treaty.
In any case, if she is "extraditable", that would still severely limit her travel options, I suppose.
Luckily for her there are no US drone strikes in Kazakhstan...
If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial).
In USA, each infringement is $250,000 and/or 5 years jail according to RIAA [1]. With 100, that's $25,000,000 fine and 500 years of jail if USA decides to prosecute you.
Her judgment would make sense.
EFF is a lobby/political group that tackles copyright issues: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/its-copyright-week-201...
You can choose to donate, spread the word, join and contribute, etc.
It's slow but works sometimes. “In 1987, over half[1] Australian households had a VCR, but it only became legal to record TV shows at home in 2006.". IIRC Politicians said their children were criminals for taping their cartoons.
Look into why "plea deals" have exploded in popularity. People get faced with the choice between pleading guilty and getting off with a light(ish) sentence even if they are innocent in reality, or having to face the "full force" of the law which can mean a sentence longer than the live span of whole generations.
The "right to due process and a fair trial" may still be there, but are you free to choose the right to due process and a fair trial if you know you can end up for life?
Yes, he did.
> Under most copyright laws, lets assume worst case scenario for real life example of broken laws.
> If you send 100 wedding photos to your grandparents without paying photographer for copyright release. That's 100 instances of crime of copyright infringement per work, even if you didn't ask for money (commercial)
This is not a crime, it isn't a criminal offence, and so the criminal sanctions do not apply. It's a civil tort. For the criminal sanctions to apply it has to meet the criteria of the crime, and that includes commercial infringement -- in the example you'd have to sell the wedding photos to the guests.
Copyright law is stupid and it needs reform which is why it's important that people don't misrepresent what it actually says.
If you sell the photographs you're now trading and that tips it into a criminal offence.
You'll find that either people are monetizing the distribution; or they're distributing so much content the rights-holders claim it distorted the market.
I'd agree that neither of these should be criminal offences, but neither of them involve "simply receiving a copy".
Sorry, I heard about the case years ago and don't have a link handy. However, that point by itself would be enough to undermine the original claim that only for-profit distribution is considered criminal.
The last part is the one that makes it different in my opinion.
It’s not just people uploading material to share. Seems the platform accesses these systems and downloads from them what’s missing (not sure if metadata or if actual publications).