Re: copyright, crime, Canada

On 04/25/97, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Ron B. Thomson <thomson[_at_]chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> > The issue has arisen because of the activities of a particularly
> > nefarious serial killer, now incarcerated in British Columbia. He is
> > convicted of the murder of a dozen or so teen-agers about 10 years ago.
> ...
> > Now he wants to write his memoires and collect the royalties from
> > this. The discussion has arisen, therefore, about ways of keeping this
> > person from benefiting from his actions, and the denial of copyright
> > was one suggestion.
>
> In the U.S., I think this would be difficult to do, ex post facto. I
> think the proper means would be 1) to secure as part of his conviction a
> huge fine in addition to prison time, and 2) upon publication of the book,
> levy against any royalties from the book.

Terry Carroll expresses a correct fear of tampering with copyright to address works we disapprove of (or authors we feel should not benefit from telling their stories). Close to his comment, a better course is to use the civil litigation process to first establish the wrongdoer's liability (which is different than "guilt" as the OJ case teaches), fix a penalty and then collect against the royalty stream/licensing income realized by the defendant/liable party.

We are not going to extinguish the regrettable penchant of society to buy "books by crooks" or the desire to read the ramblings of the deranged. We can, however, ensure that this work is not profitable (at least to the wrongdoing author). I leave it to question what we do with the very serious dollars earned by the "innocent" publishers of this sensitive material. I concede that in many horrible crimes/events there is a message to be sent, a lesson to be taught. Query who profits from the delivery of the message or lesson.

Jamie Powers
<jamie[_at_]srgpe.com> Received on Mon Apr 28 1997 - 17:11:55 GMT