Re: Coursepacks

On 7/3/98, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/2/98, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I assume that RICO is already available *against* infringers for a
> > "pattern" of criminal activity in violation of NET. If you thought
> > that the NET penalties were draconian, just think about them trebled.
>
> I've been thinking about this RICO issue anent false claim of copyright.
> It would seem to me that sec. 506(c)'s phrase "notice of copyright or
> words of the same purport" as a copyright notice could suffice for the
> criminal conduct necessary to support a RICO case. Does the RICO
> offense have to be a felony? 506(c) imposes a fine, and is certainly
> within the "criminal offenses" section of the Act.

You have to look at 18 USC 1961 which defines racketeering activity to include specifically enumerated predicate offenses (and I suspect they are all felonies). You'll find (if I recall correctly) that the predicate offenses include infringement punishable under 18 USC 2319, which is in turn limited to criminal infringement under 506(a). I suppose you could gin up a claim that the fraudulent notice falls within every prosecutor's favorite catch-all -- wire/mail fraud -- but it's a stretch, and if we accept LaMacchia it won't work.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Mon Jul 06 1998 - 15:07:30 GMT