🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> Kieron Briggs wrote:

>> For example, if Alice writes a software program to play music from a CD,
>> and then Bob uses that software to copy a CD to his hard drive and makes
>> it available over a P2P network, then Alice could be charged under the
>> new offence, even though it was Bob that infringed copyright.

> I don't think the courts would be willing to interpret "results in" that 
> widely, particarly in the context of a criminal offence.

It already happened in the US when that Russian guy wrote a reader
for Adobe e-books that translated into text suitable for a blind reader.

> Such a wide 
> interpretation would outlaw pretty much every activity associated with 
> making and selling computers.

Hmmm, interesting point you make... how about this idea: legislate broadly,
enforce selectively, make everyone a criminal, use that power to eliminate
opponents. Sound like a formula for success?

>> Schedule 9, item 186-9: These items extend current copyright law to
>> include temporary copies of data (for example, the chunk of audio data
>> held in RAM by your CD player). 

> Which is neither the complete work, nor a substantial part of it.

Yes, audio samples are considered substantial parts of a work,
this has already been established with cases covering the use of
song samples in other songs.

>> These items also do not exempt copying as a process of use where the
>> original is infringing. This means that an end-user of 'pirated' 
>> material becomes infringing, where previously it was only the person who
>> produced the original who was infringing.

> I don't really see the objection to catching this conduct. In the case 
> where the infringer didn't know that the original was infringing, and 
> could reasonably believe that it was not, the defence of honest and 
> reasonable belief would exist, so it's not as if this criminalises 
> innocent people.

Consider that SCO claims that Linux is infringing SCO copyrights.
They have brought no evidence into public view but still they have made
a complaint and told me that I must stop using Linux. Do I have a defense
of honest and reasonable belief when I decide to continue using Linux?
How am I supposed to know which way the case will go? If every complaint
is presumed to be true then I cannot safely use any software, but if I
ignore every complaint then I'm potentially a criminal. How can I reliably
know which software is safe to use?

By the way, the same argument might equally apply to any Microsoft
package or anything. Every user becomes personally responsible for
knowing the future outcomes of court cases regarding any software that
they use.

Can you say, "rigged so the big guy wins and the little guy loses"?

	- Tel