On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 14:10:42 PM +0100, jdd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > it's just the other way round. I don't look at the content (I own it) > but at the file format. > > spreading pdf is perfectly legal, spreading mp3's (and probably divx) > is not > > but the fact is it's done, massively, by big companies. Is nobody > sue them, the fordidness become pretty weak :-)
No, it's done by people through the service of those companies. This is the difference. If somebody steals a car and drives it through an highway to rob a bank, do the bank or the police go after the highway company or the car maker? See here, for example: http://picker.typepad.com/legal_infrastructure_of_b/2006/10/youtube_and_cop.html if you post on youtube something which is illegal for any reason, youtube only has to take it offline. The actual suit, when it happens, is always against who _did_ the "wrong thing". Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
