On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:49:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > 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?"
I don't think it's been universally agreed upon whether B is infringing or not. Has anyone who has *only* downloaded music been convicted under federal copyright laws? I found an article[1] dated 3/7/05 about a man that was convicted under a *state* law which prohibits "possession of counterfeit marks, or unauthorized copies of intellectual property", and the article claims that he is the first person in the country to be convicted just for downloading. --Adam [1] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-03-07-az-teen-downloader-convicted_x.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
