[j_baker]

That seems like an awfully arbitrary statement to make, especially when copyright infringement is largely a civil issue. Not to mention that grellas is an attorney, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. As I understand it, criminal charges are only warranted when the copyrighted material is sold commercially.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

[sunchild]

IAAL, too. Does that mean you'll just assume I know what I'm talking about? I've been practicing technology law for a decade and a half in New York. You'll have to excuse me if I find your attitude a little insulting...

Section 506 doesn't say "sold commercially". It says for commercial or private gain. Any lawyer worth his salt could argue that showing the game at a private promotional event for a company falls under the statute. Much more spurious arguments have been made.

[barrkel]

From what I recall, sunchild is an attorney too. Your reference doesn't back up what you say; it's not restricted to material sold commercially. Merely for "purposes of commercial advantage" is sufficient.

Quoting from here: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...

"Emphasis should be placed on the word "purpose," because it is not necessary to prove that any profit was realized. See United States v. Taxe, 380 F. Supp. 1010, 1018 (C.D.Cal. 1974), aff'd, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). The drafting committee's purpose in retaining this requirement has been to exclude from criminal liability those individuals who willfully infringe copyrights solely for their own personal use. H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1992). Evidence of discrete monetary transactions (i.e., the selling of infringing goods for a particular price) provides the clearest evidence of financial gain, but such direct evidence should not be a prerequisite to prosecution. Such a stringent requirement would ignore the plain wording of the statute, which requires only the showing of commercial or financial purpose."

[sunchild]

For the record, I think criminal penalties for copyright infringement is bad policy. Whatever public interest there was in copyright protection has long since been overwhelmed by private interests that belong in civil courts.

[njharman]

It's not a civil issue at all (in the USA). It should be. But the IP industry has convinced government to do their policing and enforcement. One infringement is up to 5yrs and/or $250,000. It's, of course, up to judge to determine sentence. But, they should be prosecuted and forced to pay for defense just like all other IP industry victims.

[dangrossman]

It's both civil and criminal in the US. The vast majority of copyright cases happen in civil court.