On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:25, Robert Bonomi wrote:

>  Public distribution without the permission of the copyright owner is
>  illegal.

This is veering off the purpose of this list, but maybe it is operationally 
significant to be able to use the right terms when a law enforcement officer is 
standing in the door.


Mark Andrews was pointing out that content being file-shared is rarely illegal. 
 By itself.  Examples of "illegal content" might be hate speech, child 
pornography, lèse-majesté, blasphemy, with the meaning of these terms depending 
on your jurisdiction.

What you are pointing out is that distribution of content may be illegal.  That 
does not make the content itself illegal.  The legality of transfer under 
copyright is bound to many legal issues, such as fair use, right to personal 
copies, and of course licensing, again depending on your jurisdiction.  But all 
this is divorced from the content.  Content is never illegal with respect to 
copyright.  (It might have been copied illegally, but once it's sitting 
somewhere, it's not illegal by itself.  A license would suddenly make it legal.)

The point is important because a lot of idiots are running around shouting "he 
had all this copyrighted material on his computer!".  Of course he had!  There 
are very few computers that don't carry copyrighted material, starting from the 
BIOS.  Without examining the legal context, such as purchasing histories, 
supreme court decisions etc., it is sometime really hard to say whether all of 
it got there in a legal way, and its presence may be an indication of previous 
illegal activity.  But (at least wrt copyright law) it is never illegal while 
sitting somewhere on a computer.

So the next time somebody says "illegal content", think "hate speech" or "child 
pornography", "lèse-majesté" or "blasphemy", not copyrighted content.  Almost 
everything on a computer is copyrighted.


Now let's return to the impact of this heist on network utilization...

Grüße, Carsten


Reply via email to