On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:14:22PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:31:37PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > When you download something from the deb archives, you create a copy. That > > copy is not permitted under the copyright act unless you have permission > > from > > the owner. If that's not the way you read 106(1), then downloading > > copyrighted mp3s off napster was legal... and I suggest to you it was not. > > Sorry, but this analogy does not hold water. Debian has a license to > distribute the packages in its archives. Most of the people using Napster > didn't. This is an important distinction.
I think what he's saying is roughly: 1: if A has no license to distribute the software, puts it on a server, and B downloads it, why is B guilty of copyright infringement if it's A who lacked a license to distribute; or 2: why is B *not* guilty of copyright infringement if A has a license to distribute but B does not?" #1 is "why is the Napster downloader guilty"; I don't have an answer to that (though I believe that's only due to my poor understanding of copyright law, and not evidence supporting Sean's argument). The sender might, after all, have had a license to redistribute. Michael answered #2. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
