Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
It's not a summary of the actual law, it's just their FAQ.
If you read the rest of their FAQ on downloading (the part you cut out), you will see that they aren't talking about what you think they are.
|
Actually, I did read it... and I don't see how you draw the conclusion that they are not talking about downloading copyrighted files? The rest of it is essentially discussing the fact that the person doing the downloading may not know whether the work is copyrighted or not.
Quote:
Also, the basis of the answer in that FAQ comes from a testimony by Marybeth Peters (Registrar of Copyrights) to the Senate Judiciary committee in 2003. What you are reading is her opinion on copyright law. If you actually read her statements before the committee she is trying to argue that filesharing itself should be illegal and the writers of
filesharing applications should be held liable (which courts have already disagreed with). She also specifically defends the recording industry, and says that they need offer no apologies to anyone about the lawsuits that they are bringing against individuals. She has also stated in the past that in her opinion the Sony Betamax case should be revisited.
If you read those statements, along with other statements she has made while working side by side with the RIAA to try and guide the direction of copyright in the future, it should be obvious where her opinions come from.
Hardly.
|
Ok Shaggy... I think I have done enough research against your claims at the moment. I have posted links to the copyright office, and provided a quote by a representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (hardly a group of RIAA cronies) that interpret U.S. Copyright Law to show that downloading is illegal. Lets see your cards. I want links to case law (At least at the appelate level), specific parts of the copyright law, or interpretations by reasonable representatives (Not some of the idiots out there who claim that Copyright is unconstitutional) of advocacy groups that uphold your position.
BTW, I will point out, the Courts have held that the people who write the software should not be held lible, but if you provide a service to help people locate files and don't take reasonable steps to block copyrighted material then you can be held lible (ala Napster).
--
Bill