"He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement."
No that is incorrect as a general observation;
He canot be guilty of copyright infringement himself because he did not have control of the intellectual property,(was not himself engaged in distrubution of the work in question) as to distribute it in the public domain.. What he might be guilty of is "CONSPIRACY" to commit copyright infringement.
There are some factors here that need to be established to constitute "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement";
1. His intent did he know the material was copyrighted he was linking to?
2 Public domain vs. private domain "fair use";
obviously he or the sites he was linking to can claim fair use because the very posting of links in a public domain can cause the copyright holder to lose control of marketing and distribution..
However if one had an ftp site that is not advertised, "marketed" and is in the private domain, this can be considered "fair use" to "share with friends for non commercial use. i.e, entertainment, testing, and/or educational use..
Take a look at the so called "warez" private ftp servers that have been raided. Notice the defendants in all cases PLEA BARGAIN.. The Governemts want that because fair use can be challenged in these cases.
I think most people do not understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringment..
In today's world, the copyright exists soley to control how the work is distributed IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.. I.E HOW MONEY WILL BE MADE from the work.
Torrent seeders WHO PUBICALLY ANNOUNCE a copyrighted TORRENT FILE(s) cannot claim fair use because the very fact that they "publically" announce distribution, puts them as such, "public distributors"
However I beleive private non advertised ftp servers, which limit a user base to "known people" falls in the private domain and I encourage so called "top scene guys" who might get busted to actively find an attorney who understands this arguement and can make the proper analogy therof.
Slashdot Mirror
This was written;
"He linked to the files knowing they were illegal, and in doing so provided a mechanism for others to download them. He was facilitating copyright infringement."
No that is incorrect as a general observation;
He canot be guilty of copyright infringement himself because he did not have control of the intellectual property,(was not himself engaged in distrubution of the work in question) as to distribute it in the public domain.. What he might be guilty of is "CONSPIRACY" to commit copyright infringement.
There are some factors here that need to be established to constitute "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement";
1. His intent did he know the material was copyrighted he was linking to?
2 Public domain vs. private domain "fair use";
obviously he or the sites he was linking to can claim fair use because the very posting of links in a public domain can cause the copyright holder to lose control of marketing and distribution..
However if one had an ftp site that is not advertised, "marketed" and is in the private domain, this can be considered "fair use" to "share with friends for non commercial use. i.e, entertainment, testing, and/or educational use..
Take a look at the so called "warez" private ftp servers that have been raided. Notice the defendants in all cases PLEA BARGAIN.. The Governemts want that because fair use can be challenged in these cases.
I think most people do not understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringment..
In today's world, the copyright exists soley to control how the work is distributed IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.. I.E HOW MONEY WILL BE MADE from the work.
Torrent seeders WHO PUBICALLY ANNOUNCE a copyrighted TORRENT FILE(s) cannot claim fair use because the very fact that they "publically" announce distribution, puts them as such, "public distributors"
However I beleive private non advertised ftp servers, which limit a user base to "known people" falls in the private domain and I encourage so called "top scene guys" who might get busted to actively find an attorney who understands this arguement and can make the proper analogy therof.