The Problems of Criminal Responsibility for Intellectual Property Wrongs from the National and International Aspects
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
In 2000 Criminal Code of the Lithuanian Republic (further – CC) articles from XXIX chapter determine criminal responsibility for the proceeding which encroach on literature, science, art or other similar author’s rights of possession and interests. Purloin of authorship (CC 191article), literature, science, art or other unauthorized reproduction of work, distribution of unauthorized copies, shipment or possessing (CC 192 article), erasure or conversion of information about authors’ rights or subrights management (CC 193 article), illegal authors’ rights or subrights of elimination means of technical protection (CC 194 article) are included as well.
Despite the necessity of protecting intellectual products, all the above mentioned CC articles are important, but it does really exist one very problematic but of paramount importance which determines the responsibility for literature, science, art or recovery of any other author’s work, unauthorized reproduction of work, distribution of unauthorized copies, shipment or possessing (CC 192 article). This notion could be validated by the prohibition of appropriate norms of the article which are most often violated and this in return presupposes abundant spectrum of problems, which are supposed to be solved by court.
Scrutinizing practical implementation of CC 192 article, the author distributes the already tackled problem groups into 1) problems related with understanding of the expressed will of lawmakers and 2) problems related with the process of searching for justice. Analyzing these problem groups the author first, of all, investigates the limits of responsibility appealing to CC 192 article.
Big attention is paid to the first part of CC 192 article which deals with the some kind of disposition problem because from the answer to the question depends and on the spectrum of criminal action. It may be concluded that there is no doubt that the existing edited norm determines penal responsibility for illegal reproduction of phonogram, their import of copies, export, distribution, transporting or keeping for commercial purposes.
Finally, the problem of narrow interpretation of “commercial purposes” feature existing in court practice is also analyzed. According to this aspect, the author speaks in favour of understanding of the “commercial purposes” feature in a wider spectrum then selling or any other realization seeking profit.
In the article, based on court practice, some particular proceeding problem aspects such as expertise doing and avouching in testimony of penal action commitment and rating direct damage and adjudgement are analyzed as well.
Despite the necessity of protecting intellectual products, all the above mentioned CC articles are important, but it does really exist one very problematic but of paramount importance which determines the responsibility for literature, science, art or recovery of any other author’s work, unauthorized reproduction of work, distribution of unauthorized copies, shipment or possessing (CC 192 article). This notion could be validated by the prohibition of appropriate norms of the article which are most often violated and this in return presupposes abundant spectrum of problems, which are supposed to be solved by court.
Scrutinizing practical implementation of CC 192 article, the author distributes the already tackled problem groups into 1) problems related with understanding of the expressed will of lawmakers and 2) problems related with the process of searching for justice. Analyzing these problem groups the author first, of all, investigates the limits of responsibility appealing to CC 192 article.
Big attention is paid to the first part of CC 192 article which deals with the some kind of disposition problem because from the answer to the question depends and on the spectrum of criminal action. It may be concluded that there is no doubt that the existing edited norm determines penal responsibility for illegal reproduction of phonogram, their import of copies, export, distribution, transporting or keeping for commercial purposes.
Finally, the problem of narrow interpretation of “commercial purposes” feature existing in court practice is also analyzed. According to this aspect, the author speaks in favour of understanding of the “commercial purposes” feature in a wider spectrum then selling or any other realization seeking profit.
In the article, based on court practice, some particular proceeding problem aspects such as expertise doing and avouching in testimony of penal action commitment and rating direct damage and adjudgement are analyzed as well.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
