Quote:
|
Yes, you have violated US copyright law by doing so.
|
I don't think I have, and I explained why I don't think so. Granted, there's no case law that I'm aware of to settle the question. But a bare assertion to the contrary, giving no rationale and citing no legal authority--I don't believe PG Australia is generally recognized as a legal authority in the US, or even in Australia--cuts no ice with me.
Quote:
There are two laws applicable:
1. The law regarding where it's legal to host the file. The file has to be in the public domain (or covered by something like a CC license) in the physical location of the server. That's why MR has two servers - our main server is in Canada, and all the books on that server are in the public domain in Canada. We also have an FTP site in the USA which hosts the relatively small number of books which are in the public domain in the USA, but not in Canada.
2. The law relating to whether or not it's legal for a person to download a book. This depends solely on whether or not the book is out of copyright or not in the downloader's location. That's because once you've downloaded the book, a copy of it exists on your computer.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
|
Two laws applicable? You mean, apparently, that there are two different sorts of act, hosting a file and downloading a file, that may be legal or illegal depending, in the case of hosting, on the law of the country where the server is located, and in the case of downloading, on the law of the country where the downloader resides.
My post had to do with a third sort of act, uploading. I think it reasonable to suppose (again, I am making inferences in the absence of any case law that I know of to settle the question) that the legality of uploading a file would be determined by the law of the country where the uploader resides. I don't see why uploading should be subject to a different sort of legal liability from downloading--except that, since uploading the file to a publicly accessible server is a way of distributing it, and unauthorized distribution, more than acquisition, is what copyright law is concerned to prevent, illegal uploading might rightly be considered more culpable than illegal downloading.
That, anyway, is my perhaps ignorant and confused view. What puzzles me about MobileRead's uploads policy is that it doesn't acknowledge uploading--an act distinct from hosting and downloading--as an act that might incur any legal liability. Not an entirely trivial matter, since it will be taken--is presumably meant to be taken--as a guide to what people may legally do. It may be well enough formulated to protect MobileRead's administrators, as hosts, from legal liability, but that's not what I'm questioning. I don't believe it is formulated to protect uploaders from legal liability. At any rate, I myself would not be guided by it.