The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute. Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is also illegal.
So, is Possession with intent to distribute for free also illegal? And is the fine point of making available for review, comment, verification of sound quality, etc. a reasonable purpose? and therefore not distribution, and therefore a loophole?
Brilliant. Remember punitive lawsuits from the early '90s, when large corporations with massive legal departments would go after someone ie. a whistleblower, for the sheer fun of bankrupting them by the slow death of a thousand pinpricks which are legal fees? I think the $20 or so it would cost to file and serve them could make it worthwhile.
Granted, the brouhaha over liability issues with IP as well as the proliferation of knowledge analogous with the Anarchists Cookbook continues to make the headlines in newer and more ubiquitous forms as lawyers start getting technical, and we do have a duty to put in our two cents or lose to the status quo, where I get stuck is the notion of civil disobedience and the ease of it. So, this move is either being done by a bunch of bozo type suits who haven't got a clue, or there is a larger issue at stake that they aren't talking about. Say for instance, BT's patent lawsuit wins and they do get ownership of the IP for hyperlinking, and say for instance, as ISPs become monolithic and backbone providers implement the technology for content monitoring, and lobbying efforts by organizations like RIAA become more effective because voluntary submission to proposed 'standards' is worthwhile for the really big corporations and 'friends of the court' aren't necessarily intelligent or objective, and just say for instance, it shouldn't be Big Brother the government we fear, it's the Industrial complex overtaking us.
Slashdot Mirror
Question:
The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute. Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is also illegal.
So, is Possession with intent to distribute for free also illegal? And is the fine point of making available for review, comment, verification of sound quality, etc. a reasonable purpose? and therefore not distribution, and therefore a loophole?
Brilliant. Remember punitive lawsuits from the early '90s, when large corporations with massive legal departments would go after someone ie. a whistleblower, for the sheer fun of bankrupting them by the slow death of a thousand pinpricks which are legal fees? I think the $20 or so it would cost to file and serve them could make it worthwhile.
Granted, the brouhaha over liability issues with IP as well as the proliferation of knowledge analogous with the Anarchists Cookbook continues to make the headlines in newer and more ubiquitous forms as lawyers start getting technical, and we do have a duty to put in our two cents or lose to the status quo, where I get stuck is the notion of civil disobedience and the ease of it. So, this move is either being done by a bunch of bozo type suits who haven't got a clue, or there is a larger issue at stake that they aren't talking about. Say for instance, BT's patent lawsuit wins and they do get ownership of the IP for hyperlinking, and say for instance, as ISPs become monolithic and backbone providers implement the technology for content monitoring, and lobbying efforts by organizations like RIAA become more effective because voluntary submission to proposed 'standards' is worthwhile for the really big corporations and 'friends of the court' aren't necessarily intelligent or objective, and just say for instance, it shouldn't be Big Brother the government we fear, it's the Industrial complex overtaking us.