[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by ahi

... 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?

I imagine you enjoy your sophistry. However, I suspect that that it would become clear whether or not the person violated copyright depending on what they did with the file after they potentially accidentally downloaded the file.

In what country?

In the United States. Intent is usually an important factor in a legal case particularly with respect to something like this. I suspect it is similar in other countries. Not many companies or criminal prosecutors would be interested in prosecuting those who accidentally downloaded a file.

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.

Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation does not agree with you.
In an article I found at Ars Technica, he says:

Does it infringe US copyright law to download music without authorization from a P2P network? It depends. If you're a teacher who needs a clip for use in a class presentation, I think there's a good chance it's a fair use. But if you're downloading just because you don't want to pay for the song, then you're probably an infringer. Intermediate cases can be imagined, but that gives a pretty good idea of the two poles.

I should also point out, that in the United States, generally, willingly cooperating with a crime, makes you an accessory and as such, you will generally receive the same penalty as the person who is guilty of the crime.

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.

And your law degree is from?

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?

No, not at all. Look up the term Mens Rea. In the cases we are discussing, if the person had no intention of downloading copyrighted material and no reason to suspect that the site they are visiting, or the book they had a copy made of was copyrighted and if a "reasonable person" would not have, then they have not committed the crime.

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

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an agent of the RIAA now?

Your fortunate, those in Canada actually can download (But not upload) provided they copy to media. But in the USA, both downloading and uploading probably violate copyright laws.

--
Bill