Originally Posted by Nickg 
.......
LJ response will be that they did not initiate this, nor is it a processed behaviour, but the "ingenuity" of shop floor staff. But the fact of the matter is that JL is guilty for in this case then, not controlling its staff, or its hardware showcases correctly.
but if the MPAA does nothing then what message does it send out to other commercial businesses, or indeed bedroom viewers.
I'd bet John Lewis management know nothing about this, and I'll bet that when they find out, they pull this rip file very quickly. I'd also bet that some staff "education" occurs, if indeed this was put on even by misguided staff. But, the possibility remains that it could have been uploaded by a mischievous member of the public .... or disgruntled ex-staff.
John Lewis has as straight-laced an attitude as any company I've ever come across and I doubt for an instant that they'd knowingly do this, or condone it being done.
As for copyright infringement, yes, it certainly looks like it. It's hard to imagine that the rights owner would approve a rip, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that licences to use this movie for demonstration do exist and have been paid for .... and the rip was used for convenience by a staff member that didn't appreciate the finer points, or indeed, how it looks. It'll certainly embarrass JL.
But for a civil action for copyright to be taken, there's only really three possible objectives.
1) Damages
2) Seizure of offending copies
3) Injunction to prevent reinfringing.
I'm sure JL will delete that copy as soon as they realise it's there, so that nails 2). I very much doubt they officially knew it was there in the first place and it goes against the entire ethos of the company, so I don't imagine there'd be any intentional reinfringing, and that's 3). And damages relate to compensation for losses by the rights owner. If there have been any, and it
doesn't include punitive damages, then I'd bet JL will pay up without a wimper and it certainly wouldn't need copyright action. Legal actions tend to be expensive and courts don't like frivolous ones, so there'd be no case if JL paid any fees due, and for what it costs, I'd say there's a zero chance that they wouldn't.
As for any criminal element, that requires an element of intent, and again, I doubt that that exists.