|
|
Posted by Mike on 10/09/66 11:43
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:54:12 GMT, "someone here"
<16-3@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Dave" <emailmeat.pants@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hked22p9d2lii1megrek0jcs2cf82tkcbs@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:30:40 GMT, Lordy.UK <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:
>>
>> >The site is legal, the actions of it's foreign customers are not.
>>
>> So why have the BPI not tried to prosecute any UK users of this site
>> when they have actively gone after P2P users??
>
>Because AFAIK in the UK.
>It is illegal to UPLOAD copyright material, without the appropriate
>licence/s.
>
>There has been no case in law to make download illegal,
There's no significant technical difference between uploading and
downloading and there's no legal difference either. You understand
wrongly.
>because this would
>interfere
>with the whole streaming audio/video thing which the corporates are trying
>to move into.
That doesn't follow at all. The streaming services to which you refer
are operated with the permission of the copyright owner. That's what
makes them lawful, not whether the music is "downloaded" or
"uploaded".
>P2P users are prosecuted for the upload part of their file sharing.
>Also prosecuted for 'having available for upload' ie stored on a hard drive.
>
>No one AFAIK has been successfully prosecuted for 'merely' having a
>collection of illegal MP3's.
Whether or not anyone has been prosecuted is completely irrelevant to
whether or not the act is lawful.
There's a current discussion on this matter in uk.legal if anyone
would like facts as opposed to wishful thinking!
Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|