On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
"purchase",
> not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up.
Infringement is the act of "copying", "distribution", or "public performance/display".
All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer,
not
by the person who acquires the infringed material.
Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a new infringement". That means that something done by the person who acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It causes it in a technical sense? OK, I suppose you could argue that. It's your argument though, not mine. All I'm saying is that infringement does in fact take place. This is pretty obvious. A copy is made without permission. Who "causes" such a copy to be made, technically and/or legally, can be argued, I suppose, but there is no question that a copy is being made.
Could a downloader ever be found liable for copyright infringement? I don't know, probably so, but I don't know of any case where this has actually happened. In most cases the downloader isn't worth going after anyway because the recoverable damages would be too small - certainly in the case where all the downloader does is visit a Wikipedia page.