Statute of limitations on copyright infringement

A brief background: The other day, I read the column written by Randy Cohen. The column was dated March 13, 2006 and the last time I checked, it is still available at:

     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucethic/20060313/cm_ucethic/recordkeeping

I wrote a message to Mr. Cohen. The message is shown first below. Much to my surprise, I received his response. I wrote a second message to him. The second message is also shown below after the first message.

My question is: Am I wrong about the statute of limitations on copyright infringement?

I have doubts with what I wrote to Mr. Cohen about the statute of limitations (three years) and I thought I would ask the forum. I tried to understand Section 507(b) but I was not sure when the clock starts. Exactly what is meant by "claim accrued"?

My first thought was that the clock starts when the copyright owner becomes aware of copyright infringement. But, I questioned it and my second thought was the clock starts when the copyright infringement actually occurs regardless of whether the copyright owner is aware of it. It (the second thought) does not make any sense to me
because of this: I can simply make illegal copy of works that still have active copyright, wrap up the copies, store them in the attic, wait for five years, retrieve the copies from the attic and enjoy using the copies without any fear of lawsuit from the copyright owners.

Where am I wrong?

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,651

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

(Here is my first message to Mr. Cohen.)

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:22:41 -0500
From: "Joseph Pietro Riolo" <josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com> To: ethicist[_at_]nytimes.com
Subject: Your wrong advice to Mark McDermott

Mr. Cohen,

Your advice that you gave to Mark McDermott on March 13, 2006 is simply very bad. It will only make him expose to the lawsuit that may happen within three years after the station is made aware of his copyright infringement. The response that he got from his former manager has no legal weight and will not affect the station's right to sue him anytime within the next three years.

Whoever does copyright infringement should keep his mouth shut. If he feels guilty for doing copyright infringement, he should send money to the copyright owner anonymously. If this can't be done in anonymous way, he should strive not to commit copyright infringement again.

Sincerely,

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

(Here is my second message to Mr. Cohen.)

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 19:29:22 -0400
From: "Joseph Pietro Riolo" <josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com> To: "Randy Cohen" <xxx>
Subject: Re: Your wrong advice to Mark McDermott

Mr. Cohen,

>
>
>
> [Randy Cohen's copyrighted expressions consisting of
> 80 to 85 words as received on April 2, 2006 deleted. jpr]
>
>
>

When Mark McDermott took out the LP's outside of the station's premise, two illegal activities occurred. One was obviously theft. Second was the infringement of the record company's exclusive right of distribution. When he played the LP's (he did not mention it explicitly but I assumed that he played them; else, why he wanted to steal them), he deprived the record company of the royalty.

As you correctly noted, the penalty for theft probably is almost non-existent because the statute of limitation might have run out and/or the total value of the stolen LP's is too small for the police to sweat over. However, the penalty for the copyright infringement is much more severe and lasts for longer time. For example, if Mark McDermott donates LP's to charity, he infringes the record company's exclusive right of distribution again.

I am not a lawyer but I know that the expectations, rules and ethics for theft do not apply equally to infringement of intellectual property rights that exist in the tangible things.

Sincerely,

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Sat Apr 08 2006 - 07:55:01 GMT