PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to Nightfall
He's still guilty of copyright infringment ...
... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| said by PDXPLT  :... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". I thought the courts held that downloading is not necessarily infringement. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| They have. But the RIAA has been great about brainwashing people on the issue.
In the US, downloading movies does fall into a different category that COULD get you in trouble. But downloading music is still perfectly fine in the eyes of both criminal and copyright law.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to ross
said by ross :said by PDXPLT :... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". I thought the courts held that downloading is not necessarily infringement. I don't think so. Can you quote any case law on that?
What the courts have held is that merely providing a download application does not constitute infringement; such an application can be used for lawful purposes, such as distributing content with the owners' permissions. Actual infringement must be proved, not just the potential for infringement. |
|
