Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
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.
|
And I'm just saying that the law is an evolving thing. AFAIK it has never been tested as to whether downloading only is considered infringement at all. Nor if it has been tested as to whether there are circumstances where the "reasonable person" would be found guilty of infringement and other circumstances where the "reasonable person" would not be.
Just as killing someone is not always murder so too, when put to the test, might downloading be considered infringement in some cases and not in others.
I do not think the law, if and when tested, will be applied exactly the same in every case. So assuming that all downloading will not and is not considered to be copyright infringement is just as absurd as assuming that all downloading is infringement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shaggy
That part was added in 1999, which is post-internet.
|
I believe DawnFalcon, and certainly myself, were referring more to what is considered infringement rather than the specific part about wilful or not. I apologise for not being clearer on that part and admit my previous post is confusing because of this lack of clarity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shaggy
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.
|
So here's another analogy.....
One person owns a copy of Harry Potter....that person and friend of theirs jointly invest in a printing press, set it up and print off a bunch of copies that they then distribute. Who has committed the infringement?
By your logic it is only the owner of the copy and the other person could only be found guilty of causing/inducing the distribution because the friend has "never had possession of the original in order to make the copy".
I believe almost any judge would not see it that way. I believe they would rule that the two are jointly responsible for copyright infringement.
In the digital age it is really no different to the above scenario. Except in scale, in that the downloader is only aiding in the distribution of a single copy.(assuming they download only) They have jointly invested in the means to copy, they have jointly acted in the production of a copy and they have jointly participated in the distribution.
Cheers,
PKFFW