| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Notes on the Viacom rulingNotes on the Viacom rulingPosted Jul 5, 2008 1:27 UTC (Sat) by mjr (subscriber, #6979)In reply to: Notes on the Viacom ruling by kirkengaard Parent article: Notes on the Viacom ruling
The Finnish copyright law, for one. Downloaders are responsible for downloading only legal material by a literal reading of the law. No, there's no way to know. Yes, it's insane, but so is the totality of the copyright law, so it's merely business as usual. I don't know if other countries have similar nuggets in their legislation, but wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
(Log in to post comments)
Notes on the Viacom ruling Posted Jul 5, 2008 15:20 UTC (Sat) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] Which of course depends on the court's reading of "download". Geek logic argues that temporary browser copies are qualitatively different from intentional copy-to-the-hard-drive downloading, especially considering the streaming nature of YouTube. The user intends to view the material, not to make a copy, in the former, and intends to acquire a copy of it in the latter. Of course, I already know that ephemeral copies have been cited in copyright decisions, several ways in several jurisdictions. Law logic, to paraphrase PJ, is different from geek logic.
|
|
||||||||||||