| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with |
| 5 |
>> zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to |
| 6 |
>> disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
mp3.com uploaded music as well as downloading it. Users didn't just |
| 14 |
upload their songs to mp3.com. They then accessed that music from |
| 15 |
other computers, so mp3.com was redistributing the music. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Don't get me wrong, the recording studios claim that downloading music |
| 18 |
is also illegal. However in practice they've only pursued court cases |
| 19 |
against distributors. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Here's the thing - propaganda is 90% of the battle for folks touting |
| 22 |
copyright. They only fight actual court cases that they think they're |
| 23 |
very likely to win. Fighting a court case and losing just encourages |
| 24 |
people to ignore you. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives