[WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN

[Ray Saintonge]

Andrew Gray wrote:

>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)
>
OK

>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.
>
I'm familiar with the theory, and know that it has been applied in some 
countries.  Its application in US law is far from clear.  There is also 
the question of safe harbour for ISPs. 

>Logically, therefore, you breach copyright every time someone else
>accesses the file. Follow the wonderful twisted insanity? Their
>action, your criminal act.
>
It's only logical if you accept your underlying premise.  If the 
download is from a neutral ISP it acts as a kind of firewall.  Sometimes 
I'm led to believe that paranoid application of copyright law with the 
approval of WMF could endanger our ISP status.  Also, we are talking 
about civil infringement, not criminal infringement.  Criminal 
infringement is more serious, but requires an even higher standard of proof.

>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.
>
That remains to be seen.

>(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...)
>
Building the machine itself would not be a problem.  It could still be 
used to print works that are safely in the public domain. It's the 
actual printing and distribution that would violate Rowlings 
copyrights.  Binding would be irrelevant.  She would be in a better 
position to prove damages thab our bad joke idiots.

Ec