Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
That is uploading.
I have.
|
So you are a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law?
Quote:
What you are talking about is indirect infringement, aka contributory infringement. I already explained that in another post. You would have to prove that the receiver KNEW that the distributor was not authorized to distribute copies and that the receiver's actions caused or induced the distributor to violate copyright.
There is no way that you can know if the source you are getting anything from on the internet is authorized or not. Most of the time you don't even know who the source is.
|
Actually the more I think about the more I realize I forgot a key part of the equation. When you download, you just don't receive the file. When someone downloads, three copies are involved.
Copy 1: sits on the server. I.e., it is the "uploaded" file for the sake of this argument.
Copy 2: is the transmission copy, broken into packets for transmission over the internet and "received" by the client. However, if the only thing that happens with those packets is that they are received by the client, then the "downloader" has no file to read. Which requires the final step..
Copy 3: The client now has to make a copy to either the memory, the hard disk or some form of computer media.
Ultimately, my copy machine analogy was flawed. You don't actually passively receive a copy. You computer is running a client that is actively making an unauthorized copy.
Now, as to your last argument. Yes, it might not be possible to prove Mens Rea. Particularly if someone only had a few illegally downloaded files on their computer system. That being said, if someone had downloaded hundreds or thousands of file, it becomes harder to argue that the person really believes that they were downloading from authorized sources. Essentially, at best you could claim the downloader was recklessly indifferent. And in any case, at this point we are not debating about whether the action is illegal (which I think it should be clear at this point, regardless of how you look at it, in the United States, it is illegal) we are talking about defending against legal action.
--
Bill