Thread: Copyfraud - public domain's fate?
View Single Post
Old 12-03-2010, 04:03 PM   #50
Kali Yuga
Professional Contrarian
Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kali Yuga ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kali Yuga's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
No, Australia now has a "life + 70" copyright law, just like most other countries do. It used to be "life + 50", and when it changed, those books that were in the public domain remained so.
I guess I'm behind the times, then


Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The site could then be legitimately charged with encouraging and contributing to copyright infringement. It would, however, be the downloaders who were breaking copyright law, not the site.
I disagree. As far as I know, both parties are responsible.

The fact that the distributor is not in the US does not alter the fundamental fact that they are providing that US citizen with the file. Although the provider is located in Australia, if the recipient is in the US then it is US law that applies (cf Allofmp3, Kazaa).

And in US law, the infringing distributor is unquestionably responsible -- this was one reason the RIAA consistently targeted the sharers rather than the recipients.


Separately, I also remain firmly unpersuaded that a disclaimer is truly sufficient to fulfill any such legal responsibilities.

For example: Marijuana is legal as a prescription medication in California, and a misdemeanor for non-legal possession of small amounts. If I have a prescription, I can walk into a dispensary and purchase what I require. No prescription, no (legal) pot.

Now, imagine for a moment if the dispensary declared it did not need to verify the prescription, and instead just handed out flyers that summarize the law and state that verification is solely the responsibility of the patient.

Do you really think the dispensary has satisfied its responsibilities? Or that it will be immune to prosecution? Or that all of the customers will be honest, and walk away if they do not have a prescription?

Or: If Napster had included a series of disclaimers stating that "sharing copyrighted material is an infringement," do you genuinely believe that would have made any difference at all in its legal battles?
Kali Yuga is offline   Reply With Quote