 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Matt
Re: Good Idea said by Matt:A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by jhboricua:said by Matt:A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: »www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | (1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(a) doesnt qualify as the bittorrent gains no money for person seeding.
(b)Same as (a)
(c)This you may be correct on, but the term "Commercial Distribution" implies money is involved as well. |
|
jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by jhboricua:said by Matt:A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: » www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. Ironically enough the word steal, stolen, stealing is not present there, so it begs to question how you reached such a ridiculous conclusion. As a matter of fact, the word steal, stealing, stolen are NOT present in the ENTIRE Title 17 copyright document. A good lawyer would know the difference between infringement and stealing, which is more than I could say about you.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
|
|
