Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Feb 2013 02:02 UTC
Legal "This means that people can no longer get convicted for violating the copyright monopoly alone. The court just declared it illegal for any court in Europe to convict somebody for breaking the copyright monopoly law when sharing culture, only on the merits of breaking the law. A court that tries somebody for violating the copyright monopoly must now also show that a conviction is necessary to defend democracy itself in order to convict. This is a considerably higher bar to meet." Well, that's progress, I guess.
Thread beginning with comment 551863
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Interesting
by tylerdurden on Fri 8th Feb 2013 03:45 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Are you seriously trying to establish an equivalence between "sharing" and "profiting from?"

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Interesting
by WorknMan on Fri 8th Feb 2013 05:25 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Are you seriously trying to establish an equivalence between "sharing" and "profiting from?"


If you're sharing something that came from somebody else, and they have explicitly asked you NOT to share it with others, does the fact that you're not profiting from it somehow make it excusable?

And what if you're trading for something with somebody else? Isn't that technically profiting?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting
by cdude on Fri 8th Feb 2013 16:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

and they have explicitly asked you NOT to share


And here we are hitting fair-use. Nobody can demand anything from you. You are free to talk about that product, to consume it under whatever conditions (like together with your girl-/boyfriend even if she/he did not buy that product - or not even likes to consume but is forced too), to write your opinion how good/bad that product is, to show and consume it together with friends and so on.

Its always a matter of balance and the interests or wishes of the producer is by no mean the most important aspect.

Sharing the product with friends is legal in many countries (private copy) for very good reasons. Selling the product on to somebody else once you not like to enjoy it any longer is legal and protected for reasons. Making copies and selling the product on is ILLEGAL for good reasons. Sharing for free? Without profit? Legal in lot countries. That people are still hunted down for that is illegal and that's what the court just outlined. They had to cause in reality people are still en masses hunted and robbed for something legal. That, my dear friend, is illegal.

does the fact that you're not profiting from it somehow make it excusable?


There is no excuse needed. Eg german law explicit says "Gewerbliche Ausmasse" what means profit. If no profit then not illegal. This IS law! That in reality SOME courts interpreted it different (and some not) is a problem. That problem got addressed now.

Are you to young to remember tape-mix sharing times? Tell me your excuse why that isn't illegal but cd-mix is (according to media-mafia, not the law as we just got confirmed).

And what if you're trading for something with somebody else? Isn't that technically profiting?


Its not how filesharing works. There is no give-to-get with those you share with just like there is no value assigned to bytes transfered. If you down- or upload the latest hollywood-video, a linux iso or music you produced your own, its all bytes that can be infinite duplicated, destroyed, edited and modified without any human interaction. With filesharing its more then clear that there is no profit, no earning associated for those sharing there data.

Edited 2013-02-08 16:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3