Talk:No Electronic Theft Act

Topic
"The NET Act amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include such things as MP3 files and specified penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines."

~ do they mean that the MP3 files are considered "private financial gain"?

~ It ammends section 101 of the Copyright Act to make financial gain to mean anything of value including recieving other copyrighted works. See the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) article to see examples of how it interacts and why it conflicts with the AHRA.

~ 17 USC 101 defines "private financial gain" as the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works", and 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A) criminalizes infringement for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". Per the terms "receipt" and "other" in 17 USC 101, as well as the fact that the threshold of criminal infringement (17 USC 506 (a)(1)(B) is a different criteria from 17 USC 506(a)(1)(A) (implying that one can, for example, illegally download an MP3 from the internet for private use (without exchanging anything for it), but it doesn't nessecarily count as private financial gain), I personally interpret "commercial advantage or private financial gain" in criminal copyright infringement, to mean when someone infringes copyright, cannot use defenses such as fair use, and (at least) expected another party to give them something of value for said infringement. (for example, if one party gives another party an illegal copy of a song in exchange for an illegal copy of another song.) I'm not an attorney however, and this does not constitute legal advice, and I welcome any corrections and clarifications to this statement. Shrewmania (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NET Act → No Electronic Theft Act – I wonder if the Manual of Style dictates the primary article name by the acronym since usually the acronym is the redirect and the full name is the article. (NBA will redirect to a disamib or National Basketball Association). If this is to be the primary, then the acronym if the official name. NintendoFan (Talk, Contributions) 02:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support NET is especially opaque as an acronym, it's also not about net neutrality, the most obvious choice for NET. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried AT&T but the primary is acronym, but probably the acronym would be supported in that case because the logo is the acronym. The key is whether or not the acronym is the official designation.  NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the official name is almost irrelevant according to the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Google gives about equal results for NET Act and No Electronic Theft Act, but many of the former hits are for unrelated subjects. This indicates to me that the proposed new title is better in two ways: 1) it is at least slightly more commonly used; and 2) it is unambiguous. In both these ways and in others that are obvious, it is more recognisable to readers. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.