Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 06:30:37 -0800 From: Sandy Rutherford <sandy@krvarr.bc.ca> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: favor Message-ID: <16902.10765.534587.541885@szamoca.krvarr.bc.ca> In-Reply-To: <1776685253.20050206150056@wanadoo.fr> 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> <1776685253.20050206150056@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:00:56 +0100, >>>>> Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> said: 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? Well, yes I agree that this is an implicit act of distribution. However, that is not enough. An explicit act is required. 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. That's the point! They typically are not unauthorized copies, at least according to Canadian law. I fully expect that the situation would be different in the USA or France. First, by selling me a copy of a CD, they are in fact authorizing me to make arbitrarily many copies for personal use and that includes ripping to my hard drive. Furthermore, since Finckenstein has concluded in point #1 that downloading is legal, then anything that I download is in fact also authorized. An authorized copy is simply a legal copy. I do not require any special permission from the copyright holder, unless required by law. Virtually all files on the Canadian P2P music sharing networks are legal authorized copies. I agree that this is a crazy state of affairs, which is why Parliament really has no choice but to rewrite the legislation. However, whether they will go so far as to signing WTTP, I don't know. Canadian copyright and patent laws have traditionally tended to be more liberal than the norm. Sandy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16902.10765.534587.541885>