Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:00:56 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: favor Message-ID: <1776685253.20050206150056@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <16902.6863.103316.326437@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca> References: <4203F451.9070307@cis.strath.ac.uk> <200502050030.39812.m.hauber@mchsi.com> <452211071.20050205114332@wanadoo.fr> <16901.23792.668233.856876@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca> <1258430214.20050206025603@wanadoo.fr> <16901.34645.144852.476246@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca> <1837626073.20050206115340@wanadoo.fr> <16902.6863.103316.326437@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sandy Rutherford writes: SR> I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are going to call http SR> public, then wouldn't any other open protocol also be public? It's a network that people explicitly opt into. For example, if you put something on a P-to-P network, it's reasonable to assume that it will be available to other users who choose to use that network, but it's not reasonable to assume that it will be available to other people who have no access to such networks. Similarly, placing material on the Web means that it's reasonable to assume that anyone with access to the Web will have access to the material, but it's not reasonable to assume that people without Web access will be able to get to it (via a printed book, for example). Finally, making something public via the printed page implies that it's accessible to everyone who can buy printed pages, but it does not imply publication on the Web, which is a separate medium. That's why print rights don't include electronic rights (and vice versa). SR> 80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any SR> substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound SR> recording, ... SR> SR> onto an audio recording medium for the private SR> use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an SR> infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the SR> performer's performance or the sound recording. SR> [25] Thus, downloading a song for personal use does not amount to SR> infringement. See Copyright Board of Canada, Private Copying 2003-2004 SR> decision, 12 December 2003 at page 20. I agree. SR> Now #2, authorization: SR> SR> Finckenstein states: SR> SR> [26] No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either SR> distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They SR> merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were SR> accessible by other computer user via a P2P service. Why would they put these copies into a shared directory other than to redistribute them to other people? SR> I cannot see a real difference between SR> a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of SR> copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal SR> copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. In either SR> case the preconditions to copying and infringement are set up but SR> the element of authorization is missing. This analog is flawed. In a library, all the books on the shelves are authorized reproductions of copyrighted works. In a P2P configuration, typically, the files in the shared directory are unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Thus, placing unauthorized copies of files in the shared directory is infringement, just as placing photocopies of books on the shelves of a library would be. A further difference is that books in a library can be consulted without making copies of them, whereas consulting files in a shared directory on a P2P network requires making copies of them, which is infringement if unauthorized. A P2P network is like a library without open racks in which the only way to consult a book is to ask for a photocopy of the book. SR> ...Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act SR> by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the SR> copies or advertising that they are available for copying... What purpose does a shared directory serve, if not distribution? SR> I believe that your comment regarding "...as long as the extra copies SR> don't allow you [to] deprive the copyright owner of revenue in some SR> way..." is referring to the "Exclusive Right to Make Available" that SR> is often attached to most copyrights. (Correct me if I am wrong.) SR> Internationally, that right is stipulated in the World Intellectual SR> Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996). SR> Canada has never signed that treaty. The USA has. This amounts to an SR> important difference. With WTTP, I can prevent anyone from infringing SR> on my ability to gain income from my copyright material, by (say) SR> making such material "available" from other sources. Without WTTP, by SR> and large the best that I can do is prevent someone else from making SR> money for themselves with my copyrighted material. These are of SR> course generalizations, but this is the roughly idea of how I SR> understand that WTTP changes the situation. That's a big difference! SR> Note that there are some clear parallels in this with how the GPL & SR> BSD licenses work. I'm not sure why this software isn't just released to the public domain. Then it would truly be open source (until the patent attorneys showed up, at least). -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1776685253.20050206150056>