Quote:
Originally Posted by Demented
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?
|
First, there's quite a bit of the new possibilities that haven't been tested in court-so everybody who's saying "yes, it's legal" or "no, it's illegal" is voicing their opinion only. (That includes me.) For instance, reading a web site involves making a copy-but that's been ruled legal because it's (supposedly) a temporary copy only.
Second, much of the difference of opinion stems from a conflict in the law. Copyright law (interpreted by court cases) generally allows you to 'media-shift' a copy you own, for your own use-not for distribution. But the DMCA declares that it's illegal to circumvent copy-protection such as DRM, which makes it illegal to do something that copyright law says it's legal to do. Conflict-which law takes precedence?
As far as I know, that question has yet to be answered by the court system, so again, different people have different opinions. (I will note that other parts of the DMCA have been ruled unconstitutional however.)
So, does that answer your question about why it's both legal & illegal to make a copy, whether your distribute it or not?