[WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN

[Andrew Gray]

On 04/06/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:

> > It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the
> > infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
>
> Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their"
> action, not "ours".

Run back to first principles for a second. I give you a pirated copy
of a novel I made. Which one of us has infringed copyright? That would
be me; I did the copying without the right. The law considers
copyright infringement to be an act done by the publisher of the
material, which is sensible enough. (There may or may not be ancillary
punishments for then recieving it, but that's secondary)

The legal interpretation of having material on the internet is that
you are "publishing" it each and every time to each and every person
who comes along and requests the file (at least, this seems to be the
dominant view at the moment) - as such, each time someone requests a
copy of the file *you* make a copy of it and give it to them.

Logically, therefore, you breach copyright every time someone else
accesses the file. Follow the wonderful twisted insanity? Their
action, your criminal act.

It becomes weird because you don't have to be involved in the loop at
all, and as such they can initiate *you* breaking the law, though
there's probably some wonderful case from the fifties involving
automated musical phone lines or something to show why it all makes
sense. After all, you do presumably have to knowledgeably have put the
file there, or something.

(Imagine, incidentally, if I built a machine which would print and
bind bootleg copies of Harry Potter novels on the push of a button. Am
I the maker responsible for the breach of copyright? Is the user? I am
tempted to see if we can get that set as a question in a law exam...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk