The situation is analogous to two casette tape machines hooked together through an analogue cable, one set to "play" and the other to "record". Clearly the "copy" is being made on the machine set to record. So long as the owner of the blank tape is the one to press record, his actions are legal. It shouldn't matter who presses play, since if there was no recording machine on the other end of the line no recording would be made.
The only difference with p2p is that the playback/recording machines are more sophisticated and the analogue cable is replaced by a set of connected digital cables (i.e. the internet). The end result is the same, and is exactly what the lawmakers had in mind when the law was enacted.
Slashdot Mirror
The situation is analogous to two casette tape machines hooked together through an analogue cable, one set to "play" and the other to "record". Clearly the "copy" is being made on the machine set to record. So long as the owner of the blank tape is the one to press record, his actions are legal. It shouldn't matter who presses play, since if there was no recording machine on the other end of the line no recording would be made.
The only difference with p2p is that the playback/recording machines are more sophisticated and the analogue cable is replaced by a set of connected digital cables (i.e. the internet). The end result is the same, and is exactly what the lawmakers had in mind when the law was enacted.