That would be news to me. More likely, they're just going with a conspiracy argument (and indeed he is charged with conspiracy): he didn't actually commit copyright infringement himself, but aided others in doing so. Even then, conspiracy laws have very specific requirements for conviction, and this may not check all the boxes. It will be interesting to see.
There's still an angle where the copyright owner claims that the person who caused this to happen did not have the authority to apply the license to it.
That would be a more valid argument if the link provided was about an actual copyright court case, rather than the estate of Agathy Christy asserting their ownership over the material in question.
Looks to me like they had to name -somebody to demonstrate that they were defending copyright, otherwise their claim to copyright could be seen as abandoned?
Dunno but it doesn't even matter. You can enforce your copyright whenever you want, that's the rules of the USA. You don't have to enforce it all the time if you don't want to.
> Copyright infringement is not a crime in and of itself. It's only criminal when it's done for commercial purpose with financial gain which is clearly not the case here.
US Copyright laws, sure, this statement is correct. In some countries (especially in Europe and Asia) however, this is pretty much the opposite.
(Point noted however that Mr. Kelly is probably American, which assuming you're American will be subjected to U.S. IP laws, especially DMCA provisions. Since that this is unprotected, DMCA circumvention is out and this infringement would be only a crime if this was specifically filed in court, and even them it might be argued that this is more of a civil lawsuit than a criminal lawsuit.)
I've wanted to know what Pouley Ketchup is talking about for a long time, but we don't know, so hard to use it as evidence for much.
I have my guesses who he's talking about tho.
reply