Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
The specific scenario you posted would be covered under fair use for the downloaders. The moderator certainly has a fair use right to review uploaded files to see if they violate copyright or not. Likewise if downloaders have reason to believe that they are not actually downloading copyrighted material (i.e. because of a misleading topic heading) they have a fair use right to review the material downloaded.
|
... so it only becomes copyright infringement if they save the file for an extended period of time, or if their browser cache is not set to purge viewed pages' cached copies immediately upon closing the browser? (Copies, COPIES,
COPIES--THE HORRRRRROR!)
What's the cut off time in days... or hours... or minutes? Is it variable based on the length of the work? Are you allowed to keep a 3 hour movie for longer (in order to review to ascertain whether it infringes copyright) than a 300 page book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
On the flip side, if you posted it clearly and unambiguously as what it was, then the downloaders very likely are violating copyright law.
|
In what country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Lets look at it this way. If person A has a legally purchased CD (I am using something where the medium and the media are tied together to simplify things) and lends it to person B, then everything is fine. Person B has a legal right to listen to that CD. However, lets say that person B asks person A to make a copy of the CD for him and person A complies. Now both person B and person A have violated copyright law; person A actually has made the copy, but person B caused the copy to be made.
|
The most sensible argument this analogy could possibly make is that person B is guilty of contributory infringement... or some other such nonsense.
"Copyright infringement" is not some hidden metaphysical quality of a given copy of media, but rather an unauthorized act of distribution by a human being. A giving of something to someone. Person B is not giving themselves something--person A is doing the giving. Person A infringes. Person B does not.
The "causing" you are talking about is, alas, not recognized in most legal jurisdictions as such... and even where it is, certainly not as "copyright infringement" in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Now on the flip side, if person A lead person B to believe that the CD contained music owned by person A, then requesting a copy does not make B guilty of violating copyright because B believed it was legal to make that copy.
|
Ah... so now the indiscernible internal mind-state of person B is the point of arbitration as to whether or not a particular action was illegal. Making the technologically ignorant/naive, I suppose, less often guilty of copyright infringement... simply because they are too stupid to understand what's going on.
You don't find this silly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Downloading is the same thing. Person B is taking a copyrighted file and making a copy of that file which B did not pay for and which otherwise does not fit under fair use. We are not talking about making copies that person B did not realize violated copyright.
|
Basically I find your line of reasoning removed from real world laws... on the other hand, it is rather in line with the propaganda campaigns run by the RIAA and its ilk under the guise of "educating the public".
- Ahi