Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
"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.
|
That's not what I'm saying. I'm flipping the argument around and attacking it from the other side to show how ridiculous it would be if downloading were an offence.
Let's assume downloading IS infringement. What the "had no reason to believe" means, is that even if you went to Amazon and downloaded infringing material, then you would be guilty as well. The fact that you "had no reason to believe" that material on Amazon was illegal would not make you innocent. Assuming downloading is infringement, then you would be guilty regardless of whether or not the site was expected to be legitimate. My point is to show how absurd that situation would be.
Flipping it back the other way, and arguing it from my own opinion... The clause "had no reason to believe" refers to distributing content only, not receiving it. If you are a distributor,then it doesn't matter if you had no reason to believe the material was infringing. It is your resposibility to find out before you distribute. That, IMO, is the real meaning of the law. IMO, the law doesn't apply at all to receiving material.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That part was added in 1999, which is post-internet.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There is a difference between being the distributor versus causing/inducing the distribution. What you are talking about is indirect infringement, aka contributory infringement. That is a different thing from direct copyright infringement.