|
Unfortunately, Logos, this is simply not true. There are several concepts in the law which could apply to preclude a copyright holder filing a claim. The most obvious is the statute of limitations, which holds that any suit for a violation of copyright must be intiated within three years of the date the violation accrued. (17 U.S.C.A. ยง 507(b).) There are exceptions to this, and the fact that an earlier violation was not sued on does not wavie the right of suit on subsequent violations. This was held in a case called Merchant v. Levy, 92 F.3d 51 (C.A.2.N.Y.,1996), amongst others.
The second way a copyright claim could be barred would be by laches, which is an equitable doctrine which holds, generally, that if you have in some way "sat on your rights" by not bringing suit, then you are estopped from bringing the suit. The Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, for example, held in New Era Publications Intern., ApS v. Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, that when the publisher knew of the copyright infringement for two years and did not seek to enjoin it in the United States (they had in other countries) until the books were printed and packed, they were barred by laches from pursuing the claim.
Laches is, to be sure, an uncertain defence, because you are having to rely that the court will find the copyright holder was aware of the violation, and they chose not to act. However, if a court was willing to analogise printing books to putting up a MU*, then in fact sending a letter and recieving no reply might (and I emphasize the might) provide this sort of defence.
I think we have to be clear here that only in certain specific circumstances is infringing on a copyright 'illegal' in the strictest sense. It is not a crime to infringe on someone's copyright, it's a civil wrong, which subjects you to a statutory minimum damages of $5,000 per violation. Under federal law, you would have to be making money by infringing the copyright, and SoI is clearly not. Therefore, it cannot be a criminal offense.
-Aeolus
|