On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Raul Miller wrote: > Under copyright law, the precise details of how the copy arrives doesn't > matter. What matters is that the copy arrives.
Under many circumstances it doesn't matter. However, if the license prohibits one method of arrival but not another method of arrival, then it does matter, and it is then possible for identical outcomes to be illegal or legal depending on the series of steps used to reach them. It's like a license which says "you can copy this except on Sunday". Assume today is Sunday. You can make a copy, wait a day, and give me the copy. You can also wait a day first, then make a copy, then give it to me. The exact same outcome, but one is legal and one is not--and the only difference is that two steps were done in a different order. Saying that you can't distribute a derived work is like saying you can't distribute on Sunday--it matters greatly whether you do "derive the work, then distribute" or "distribute the work, then derive". > If more than one person is involved in making those copies the individuals > who contributed towards making those copies can still be nailed for > contributory infringement. In order to have contributory infringement, there must be direct infringement. In this scenario, nobody is committing direct infringement.
