I've been wondering about the semantic wording of the copy right laws. Technically it's perfectly legal for me to copy a DRM'd(or non-drm'd) work that I own and put it in as many places as I want on my computers or storage devices. So copying a copyrighted work isn't illegal, it is distributing the work that is illegal. Reading a copyrighted work that I don't own can't be illegal because we're allowed to do that every time we walk into a book store or using a friends copy of the work. So how can downloading a copyrighted file and reading it be 'illegal'. Shouldn't the act of distributing the file be the only illegal action?
|