Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
I'm not missing that that is your opinion. I have also stated, repeatedly, in this thread, that I tend to agree.
I'm just not getting why you seem to think that your opinion is law rather than just your opinion?
|
What makes you believe I think it's anything other than my opinion?
Quote:
|
As for why there are no cases about downloading specifically.......I would imagine it actually is because of nothing more than the fact that it would be too easy to defend against by simply claiming "I didn't know if it was subject to copyright." And note, that defence is not in anyway claiming that no offence has been made, only that the accused was unaware they may have been committing an offence.
|
That is not a valid defense to direct copyright infringement, so I don't see why that would stop anybody from trying to prosecute.
Quote:
|
2: Find someone who had downloaded so much that the defence of "I didn't know, and no reasonable person could be expected to know, all this free stuff on the internet was under copyright or likely to be subject to copyright" would not be a reasonable defence.
|
You're talking about a defense to indirect infringement.
IF downloading qualified for direct infringement, then such a defense doesn't exist. Willful vs Unwillful direct infringement only effects the penalties involved, not the guilt or innocence.