Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
Note, it says that if the infringer "had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement" it does NOT mean they are innocent. It merely reduces the penalties (The $200 is a minimum, not the max that they can still be liable for).
|
"had
no reason to believe.........."
1: One could argue that any reasonable person who went to a torrent site and downloaded the latest Harry Potter book for free from an anonymous uploader then they may very well have "reason to believe" their acts may constitute an infringement.
2: As DawnFalcon points out, the law was written pre-internet days and that is just another, and probably the biggest, reason why it is not so clear cut as you seem to think.
As an example......by going to a torrent site and downloading the latest Harry Potter book you are actively participating in the making of a "copy". You own a machine that is integral to the process, you actively request that a copy be made. You physically push buttons to enable the process. Now you suggest that because you never physically possess the original you have in no way committed copyright infringement. You have not "supplied unathorised content" so to speak. Pre-internet I have no doubt at all that you would be correct and you may even be now. But you have actively participated in the supply of that content to yourself and so in this day and age you may find it isn't so clear cut.
So from that point of view it may very well be ruled, if ever brought before a judge, that going to a torrent site and downloading something that you have not verified is in indeed considered copyright infringement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shaggy
And I stated explicity why the analogy is flawed. You are drawing a comparison between two things that are completely different in the exact sense of your comparison. Copyright is a "strict liability", stolen property is not. That means they have the exact opposite behavior in your anology. That's why, in your example, they have "nothing to do with each other".
|
Very well, point taken. Analogy is flawed.
Concept remains though. It hasn't been clearly stipulated in the law one way or the other and is up to a judge to make a ruling in each case. Until a case is brought against someone for only downloading and not uploading we just wont know and it is all speculation.
Cheers,
PKFFW