Cpoyright/Trademark Infringers Beware

Remember all those CC members who constantly tell me to mind my own business and that I'm not the cake police?

Well, guess what... it turns out that I have been warning people to follow the law for good reason.

For those of you who enjoy making cakes of protected property, please read the attached article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-21/music-downloading-damages-left-intact-by-u-s-high-court.html

The courts handed down a fine to an individual who not only did not sell the property, but also had only thirty individual violations, much less than some of the portfolios on CC. This case involved a man who illegally downloaded 30 songs and shared them.

Evidently, the fine is from $750.00 to $150,000 per violation. He was charged $22,000 for each violation, grand totalling $675,000. Several courts have upheld the amount.

How many times have I quoted that the Feds put the number of violations at 10 to convert the charge into a federal criminal charge? It had a purpose.

If I were a decorator with published protected material, I would take it down now. Even though many of the photos will be cached, I would think that a voluntary cease and desist would help.

While you are at it, be sure to check your kids' iPod accounts for music downloaded by other than proper channels.

When members like me, Jason, and others warn you all about this, we aren't trying to be disagreeable, but professional. For businesses operating outside the law, beware that the internet will not be on your side. It has allowed us to share, find answers to everything, and grow our businesses virtually (pun) for free. But with that comes a trail right back to you for copyright/trademark infringements, evidence of selling for the IRS and state tax depts (example: I sold this cake for $$ in a post on CC). The IRS only needs evidence of one item to search your books and household income from "the day you were born" or to asses you with taxes and penalties for what you may have sold.

Again, not an "I told you so", but a message that will hopefully reinforce two things:

1) Please make sure you fully understand the penalties for working outside the law.

2) If you choose to work outside the law, do not publish it on the web.

For $150,000 a pop, there can be plenty. This case will lead to entrepreneurs who will open up law firms for just such cases. They are already there, but with this publicity and the sinking incomes of lawyers in this recession, there will be plenty of enterprising people to make this happen.

For the internet, the evidence is online with the infringer's address. A simple and cheap prosceution for the plaintiffs.

I wasn't posting legal advice. It was an article that reiterated what many of us have been posting for years. This happens to be concrete evidence of a case tried and won with no exchange of money.

Copyright and trademark laws are actually very easy to interpret by just about anyone and there are numerous sites that explain it in layman's terms. Just google it and an abundance of reputable sites will give great information.

CC members still have a choice. I just made a suggestion.

If you all are somehow insinuating that whether or not to make a John Deere tractor out of gumpaste is a highly subjective case of copyright/trademark infringement, sorry, it's a piece of a cake.

Yes, of course, there are highly subjective cases, but Hello Kitty, Spongebob, and Elmo cakes certainly do not fall into that category. So the simplistic explanations on the web will be more than sufficient in determining if the Thomas The Train cake you want to sell falls into the category of infringement. Give me a break.

It is funny and I always anticipate the few who always try to attack anything I say. I referred to this in a thread the other day. And again, a point I was trying to make in the best interest of the cake community disintigrates into critiquing my message. Same people, same story, broken record.

When your only point is to pick at what I tried to make as elementary as possible, I really don't care. The Feds have an abundance of task forces out there busting internet infringers. This is newer. The music industry has had attorneys working on this since the day the songs began to appear on the web. If there is money in it, the lawyers will come. It only gets easier and easier to prosecute once the prescedents are set and the computer programs for detection are perfected. The internet is still relatively new. But enforcement of those laws will eventually become common on the web.

Again, my point was to share the article and give people the opportunity to decide where they want to stand on the issue of protected property given the concrete information.

Yes, those chosen few will always look for and chime in on my posts and try to tear down the message. But I hope my general message is received in the manner that I intended... maybe a few people will reconsider the practice of replicating protected property and avoid a similar situation. This man in the article doesn't even have a job, but as soon as he does, the courts are going to attach his wages and will expect full payment.