Uploading - Distrubution Or Not

[RealitY]

I posted this once before since the idea strikes couriosty on a legal level.
Unfortunattly the post went bad due to funk, so here it is...

Originally posted by REALITY
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.

[J'Pol]

Once again, the mere act of making the copy is illegal in the UK.

If you were to take illegal material and place it on a table, in unlimited quantities. Then tell people to help themselves, that would surely constitute distribution.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by JPaul@8 September 2003 - 21:43
Once again, the mere act of making the copy is illegal in the UK.

Actually I'm addressing the US since the lawsuits are here for now.

If you were to take illegal material and place it on a table, in unlimited quantities.

Who is to say the materail in a shared folder is illegal, considering that one may have rights to it under fair use.

Then tell people to help themselves, that would surely constitute distribution.

When did anyone suggest that you were told to download to it. Nobody ever even suggested you turn on your computer. How could anyone be held responsible for what you choose to download.

[DasScoot]

The window/picture metaphor is flawed. Putting something in your shared folder is more like getting some highly detailed copies made, and then putting them on your lawn with a sign saying 'take these'. And then putting an ad in the paper listing your address.

[The_Verifier]

Heres my question. If you use Bittorrent or Shareza or a program in which you just upload bits of a file to other users and not the whole file is it still Copyright Infringement? seeing you are only uploadin pieces of a file which is only data how can it be a violation of copyright seeing that they only upload some of the data from me and not the whole album or movie. If they were to sue me wouldnt they have to sue everyone in the upload/download pool because you are gettin the data from everyone uploadin and downloading. Please help me understand this concept.

[loz]

Originally posted by JPaul@8 September 2003 - 20:43
Once again, the mere act of making the copy is illegal in the UK.

If you were to take illegal material and place it on a table, in unlimited quantities. Then tell people to help themselves, that would surely constitute distribution.

I actually thought you could make a copy for personal/ backup reasons.

Also as REALITY says you aren't saying here download this now, it is merely there, if I drove around town in an expensive car people would know I have one, if I then left it somewhere & you chose to take it I am not the one who is breaking the law.

[Switeck]

What really pisses me off is when they not only say we're distributing it but we're also broadcasting it. 'Broadcasting' has the side-meaning that you're sending it to lots of people at once as though they could all watch it at once.

Even on broadband internet connections of considerable speed/quality, whether it be a MP3 or movie, it often takes LONGER to upload it to someone (even if that's all you're doing) than it does for the receiver to play it beginning to end. The MPAA really likes to make an issue with how 'fast' a whole movie can be pirated with typical broadband lines, but never likes to point out that you can't actually copyright infringe by uploading it that fast.

[slick nick]

"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."

The concept of me downloading off you is not comparable to you having a cd at my house and for whatever reason me copying it. on a p2p network we all know what we are their for and anything in our shared folder the public can access. you example is of something unintentional. p2p is intentional sharing.

"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."

once again there's intentional distribution and unintentional. This is unintentional.

"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"

You put your cd's in your shared folder inviting people to download them. you have to have a filesharing program open for it to be downloaded. you are intentionally distributing the cd. either that or you like to waste system resources running programs that you aren't using by running a p2p client with a cd in the folder and not downloading yourself.

"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."

it's no stretch to call placing something somewhere purposely where it can be downloaded and having a program open that allows this distributing.

"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."

There's reasonable sharing and then there's illegal distribution. they are only looking to stamp out illegal distribution.

"How do they intend, long term, to show filesharing as truly being illegal, a loophole is soon to appear."

It is truly illegal. purpsely distributing copyright material is illegal. filesharing is illegal. there's no getting around that.

[loz]

Originally posted by slick nick@9 September 2003 - 19:43
....running a p2p client with a cd in the folder and not downloading yourself....

Do it a lot of the time

[RealitY]

Originally posted by slick nick@9 September 2003 - 20:43
The concept of me downloading off you is not comparable to you having a cd at my house and for whatever reason me copying it.

Then I must firgure that you can point to law that clearly states putting mp3's in a shared folder is illegal??

on a p2p network we all know what we are their for and anything in our shared folder the public can access. you example is of something unintentional. p2p is intentional sharing.

Maybe so, but does that define it is as illegal??

You put your cd's in your shared folder inviting people to download them. you have to have a filesharing program open for it to be downloaded. you are intentionally distributing the cd. either that or you like to waste system resources running programs that you aren't using by running a p2p client with a cd in the folder and not downloading yourself.

It sounds as though you have deemed the intention of ones actions as illegal, this still smells of a rather border line definition. Perhaps I open KaZaa and do a media search and it shoves media files into a shared that I did not intend to have there, at the same time the progam is set to load with windows, now since the intention is different should that be deemed unintentional distribution thus not being an offence...