The whole premise here regarding filesharing being illegal seems to be the point of it being"distribution".
Although the point of "distribution " appears legally challenged...
I have to come to think in light of the Jane Doe vs RIAA case that simply having your CD collection on your hardrive (legal), which becomes illegal when put into your "shared folder", since you are " distributing" it. This appears to be a flawed concept perhaps since "distributing" means just that, "distributing"...
If I have a CD at your house and you make a copy of it...
Could that be deemed "distribution" on my part
Or did YOU copy it.
If I leave my windows open and you take a picture of a copyright poster on my wall...
Could that be deemed distribution on my part
Or did YOU take that picture.
If I put my CD's in my "shared folder" (window open) and you copy them...
Could that be deemed "distribution" on my part
Or did YOU download it
I have read the dictionary definition of "distribute" and it seems could be argued either way I gusess, although simply putting files in a folder would be a very liberally streched meaning of the idea. Otherwise the concept of "sharing" would have to be deemed illegal, good luck, thats a strech. Though someone is trying to pass a law making "file sharing" illegal, most lickely to define these issues.
How do they intend, long term, to show filesharing as truly being illegal, a loophole is soon to appear.
Just trying to strike up some thought.
Bookmarks