Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
No they aren't.
The downloader requests a copy, the uploader gives it to them. The downloader never has direct access to the original file, and cannot make a copy themselves.
Forget about the technology involved, it doesn't matter. Think about if you walk into a book store and ask the clerk for a book behind the counter. He pulls it off the shelf, makes a photocopy of it, and gives you the photocopy. The original book remained in his possession the entire time. Who committed infringement?
|
I believe your analogy is flawed.
It might be better to think of it this way.....I ask for a copy, the guy gets it down, brings it over to my photocopier, he puts it on the copy machine, I press the copy button and away we go.
Who has committed the offence?
Again, I'm no expert and I don't know if any company has even tried to prosecute the
downloader or if they have tried and failed. I do know they generally go after people who have uploaded alot of material because they are easier fish to fry so to speak. It is easier to prove.
Think of their reasoning much like the reasoning of the tax department. They don't often go after big tax dodgers like Kerry Packer(when he was alive, here in Australia) because they are too hard to catch. Does that mean he wasn't evading tax? Of course not, it means he had good enough lawyers that it wasn't worth their time and effort to go after him.
The fact companies don't go after downloaders who do not upload
may be akin to that. It isn't worth their time because the case might not be as easy to prove.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
PKFFW