Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/14/09 11:29, Darren New wrote:
>> In the USA, you can get into copyright violation for that. You've
>> essentially copied the image on the hosting site and put it on yours.
> 
>     You mean I've "effectively" done it, or to be even more precise, 
> I've "appeared" to do it.
> 
>     Because technically, I haven't.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Copyright isn't about "technically". It's 
about people.  The judge looks at web site A, with a copyrighted image on 
it, and web site B, with the same image on it, and says "You copied the 
image."  You might be able to argue about it, but that's how the law appears 
to be working here.

You took the image, you put it on your site. That the bits are streaming 
from someone else's machine doesn't mean much, in US copyright law at least.

Just like when I put a file up on my server to be shared with the world, I'm 
not violating copyright. You're violating copyright by downloading it. (I'm 
guilty of contributing to your infringement, but not infringing myself.)

That's why I say copyright law has to change in the face of digital 
automated reproduction.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message