[WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN

[Anthony]

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [I fixed your post for you.]
>
> On 04/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03/06/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/06/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at 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.