[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.