EU Parliament Calls On EU Countries To Drop All Charges Against Snowden, Protect Him From Extradition

Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention

from the and-will-cost-you-$10,000-in-damages dept

Thu, Oct 29th 2015 9:47am — Glyn Moody

One of the worst ideas that the copyright maximalists have managed to foist on the world is that there should be anti-circumvention laws forbidding users from doing a range of entirely sensible things with their own possessions, simply "because copyright". Required by the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and implemented by the DMCA (pdf) in the US, and Copyright Directive in the EU, anti-circumvention laws have reduced people in the US to begging for permission to unlock their mobile phones, or to check whether software in their car is lying about emissions. In the EU, they are not even allowed to beg.

If anyone had any doubts about the inherent ridiculousness of anti-circumvention laws, they might like to consider an extraordinary decision by a judge in Canada, reported by Teresa Scassa on her blog. It concerns a certain Dan Pazsowski, who was quoted in an article published by a news service called Blacklock's Reporter. When Pazsowski heard about this, he naturally wanted to find out more:

Since his company did not have a subscription to the service, he contacted a colleague at another company that did have a subscription and asked if they could forward a copy to him. They did so. He then contacted Blacklock's to discuss the content of the story, about which he had some concerns. He was asked how he had obtained access to the story, and was later sent an invoice for the cost of two personal subscriptions (because he had shared the story with another employee of his organization).

His refusal to pay the $314 (Canadian -- about US$240) plus HST (Harmonized Sales Tax -- a value-added sales tax) led to a lawsuit alleging breach of copyright. Despite the fact that Pazsowski had simply asked a colleague for a copy, the judge in the case took a very dim view of the matter: Judge Gilbert also found that the defendant had unlawfully circumvented technical protection measures in order to access the material in question, in contravention of controversial new provisions of the [Canadian] Copyright Act. It would seem that, in the eyes of the court, to ask someone for a copy of an article legally obtained by that person could amount to a circumvention of technical protection measures.
The judge returned to the issue of circumvention when it came to awarding damages (all figures in Canadian dollars): the plaintiffs originally sought the price of two personal annual subscriptions as compensation for the access to the article by the defendant ([CA]$314 plus HST). The court ordered damages in the amount of $11,470 plus HST -- the cost of a corporate annual subscription. Judge Gilbert cited as justification for this amount the fact that the defendants "continued to stand steadfast to the notion that they had done nothing wrong while knowing that they had taken steps to bypass the paywall." (at para 64). In addition, he awarded $2000 in punitive damages.
So, for requesting a copy of an article that was legally obtained by a colleague from a paywalled source, Pazsowski found himself hit with around US$10,000-worth of damages. This completely disproportionate punishment for what is at most a minor case of copyright infringement is a perfect demonstration of where the anti-circumvention madness leads.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dan pazsowski, infringement, paywall

64 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 8:07am

"Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
The court ordered damages in the amount of $11,470 plus HST -- the cost of a corporate annual subscription. Judge Gilbert cited as justification for this amount the fact that the defendants "continued to stand steadfast to the notion that they had done nothing wrong while knowing that they had taken steps to bypass the paywall." (at para 64). In addition, he awarded $2000 in punitive damages.

That's not $2,000 in punitive damages, it's $13,470. The judge specifically hit them with a fine $11,156 higher than the 'damaged' party originally demanded, because they refused to agree that they had done something wrong.

The judge could have ordered them to pay the original demand of $314, and slapped on the 'punitive' fine of $2,000 if he was feeling vindictive, but instead chose to make it as damaging as possible for the defendant, simply because they insisted on fighting the demand.

And lest the central point of insanity be missed, the article in question was one the defendant was quoted in, and I assume had some issues with, hence their interest. He's facing a fine of $13,470 for an action equivalent to printing out an article and sharing it with someone, an article that he was mentioned in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
  The worst part about that is does it really make sense to punish Dan Pazsowski for 'circumvention' when it's actually someone else who did all the circumvention?
  
  By the judge's logic if someone steals cable and plays it over a TV in a public area, everyone who watches the stolen cable is a thief.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
    It's much closer to if you go to a friends and watch their cable, you are a thief.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
      But you're still guilty of circumvention, even though it was the friend who did all the circumvention.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
  ^^^ This. ^^^
  
  "continued to stand steadfast to the notion that they had done nothing wrong while knowing that they had taken steps to bypass the paywall."
  
  How DARE you maintain your innocence!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: "Refuse to plead guilty? Oh that's going to cost you..."
  LOL It only shows that some people have too big a mouth. He could have claimed he got the information from a private source, but chose to outline how he acquired the article. The judge had no alternative, but to slam dunk the guy in this day and age of excessive fines for little actual damage. The fact he was mentioned in the article only adds irony to the matter. Maybe we should have a law that states any media containing an individual must have a free copy forwarded to that individual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 9:59am

Good for the judge!
Thats right! The judge did the correct thing here.

I would have done the same. Where I to sit up on a court where "The People" allowed their elected officials to enact this tripe I would have measured it back to them the same.

The people get the government they deserve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:18am
  
  Easy to say from the gallery rather than the defense's chair
  And should you one day find yourself in court, facing a jury of your peers, for an action that you don't feel was worthy of the charge and/or penalty you face, you'd best hope that the people sitting in those chairs don't feel the same as you, lest you too 'get what you deserve'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Easy to say from the gallery rather than the defense's chair
    Sadly, this is what I completely expect to happen to me. I expect a jury of my peers or almost any other judge for that matter to be wholesomely ignorant of the law they judge me for and to deliver something other than actual justice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: Good for the judge!
  > The people get the government they deserve!
  
  I'm sure that slogan comes as great comfort to people in war zones everywhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re: Good for the judge!
    There is no comfort in that slogan, yet true it will remain.
    
    If people will not stand and take their freedom and liberty they must understand that it WILL NOT be given to them and therefore tyranny shall be visited upon them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2015 @ 5:17am
    
    Re: Re: Good for the judge!
    It's ok. They die young, so they don't suffer long. /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: Good for the judge!
  You're so angry with the government that you're eager to punish your friends and neighbors because of it, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cfv, 29 Oct 2015 @ 9:59am

The good news is that this will likely dissuade people from consuming media from this shoddy places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:01am

This is like citing someone for breaking and entering because they followed someone into a locked apartment building. Hey, they "circumvented" the lock!

But what I'm confused about is why the person making the request is the one in trouble, and not the person who made a copy of the paywalled article. I can see why you'd get in copyright trouble for making a copy. After all, that's the entire point of copyright. But for merely asking for a copy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re:
  forget about the insane bits: i don't get the fine for a year's commercial subscription for the -supposed- circumvention on ONE article, ONE time; why isn't that 'access' fine/fee pro-rated for -say- one day, instead of a whole year ? ? ?
  ...*and*/or, does that now mean they get a year's access to these butthurt blacklocker peep's 'stuff' ? ? ?
  
  oh, and The Law's an ass...
  
  ...and, the last two sentences of the article's second paragraph do not parse well...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
teknosapien, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:05am

What if
The subscriber had read it to the person that requested a copy. would that be considered "circumvention of technical protection measures". If so does any conversation surrounding this article become the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: What if
  Copyright Police (tm) says you must forget the article as soon as you read unless you've acquired a license to store it in your brain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BernardoVerda (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:00pm
  
  Re: What if
  The first rule of Blacklock's Reporter, is that you don't talk about Blacklock's Reporter.
  
  The second rule of Blacklock's Reporter, is that you don't share Blacklock's Reporter, either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:06am

Copyright, it can do anything... even get a Judge to issue a ruling that will manage to lower peoples already dismal views of copyright.

I wonder if the gentleman who was quoted will now look for ways to take his concerns about the article to court.

I sure hope they didn't include the article in the court docs, it could lead to billions in fines for all of these people who circumvented the system seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:08am

As contempt of court is illegal in Canada, the courts have an obligation to not invite contempt.

For courts like Justice Gilbert's, that can mean being beneath contempt rather than above it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:11am

And this is how you make sure that as a news service you never get another quote again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  ...and get some negative advertising. FTFY (Finished TFY)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  It's an interesting business model. Quote someone (they may have said something on the news or in some other publication). Make a comment about that quote and the person behind the quote. Publish it behind a paywall. Charge an enormous fee to access the publication. The person being quoted must now pay you to access an article about them. Profit!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a trick already used by spammers. "I can't believe what they're saying about you on this site!!!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dreddsnik, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:33am

This is not a bug, it's a 'feature'.
This was always the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:46am

Hold it
Something's fishy halfway through.

Sequence of events:
1) Service quotes guy in a story.
2) Guy gets copy of story.
3) Guy contacts service to discuss concerns about story.
4) Service ask guy where he got the copy.
5) other stuff happens

I have a problem with #4. Why would the news service ask the guy they quoted where/how he got a copy of the story?

Was the service afraid he was going to public say they misquoted him and were trying to shut him up with some kind of anti-disparagement clause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: Hold it
  "Why would the news service ask the guy they quoted where/how he got a copy of the story?"
  
  The more burning question is why did the guy answer the question?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Oct 2015 @ 5:47am
    
    Re: Re: Hold it
    He thought it was an innocent question and in his naivety he answered it, hoping that demonstrating what an honest person he was would result in an honest response from the service.
    
    Instead, he got dinged for not paying for the copy he received.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:05pm
  
  Re: Hold it
  I have a problem with #4. Why would the news service ask the guy they quoted where/how he got a copy of the story?
  
  So that they could proceed to #5 since they didn't have his name as a subscriber.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restin (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:48am

Explain to me how this is any different (other than the medium) than picking up one of the many dozens of magazines in waiting rooms across the country and reading the articles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  Because a copy was made. If he had gone to his friend and borrowed his copy, it wouldn't be an issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He just used the article for a short time while the friend wasn't using it, the difference between borrowing and giving and copying in this case is arguing semantics. What he did was the digital equivalent of borrowing his friends article. You make a copy of a book when you check it out of the library today.. Thats just how computers work, lending, giving, selling, buying, storing, backing up, everything is done through copies.
    
    The friend is allowed to make copies of the stories from his subscription, but he isn't allowed to make copies for the purpose of lending them out, or giving them to anyone, his agreement likely specifies he can only do it for personal use, and, if so, that is where the infringement is.. Squarely on the friend's shoulders.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aglynn (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 6:47am
  
  Re:
  Or going to the library and photocopying a page from a book, something that was upheld as perfectly legal by the Canadian Supreme Court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aglynn (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 6:50am
    
    Re: Re: Paywalls and libraries
    This raises an interesting issue. My library card gives me access to various paywalled services. If I copy something off a paywalled service, what is the difference between that and copying a page from a physical book in the physical library? In both cases I "obtained access" via the library and copied a copyrighted page.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:50am

He should have said that his friend read the article and alerted him to it, so he went to see his friend and read it directly on his computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:57am
  
  Re:
  He will then most likely be told that only the person that has a paid for it via subscription is allowed to view it and that by viewing it himself he has committed theft being as he hasn't paid for the privilage of being able to view it himself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dingledore the Flabberghaster, 30 Oct 2015 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  No, he shouldn't have said that. He has the right to be honest.
  
  What should have happened is that the law wasn't passed, or that the judge threw it out as petty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 11:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    "He has the right to be honest."
    
    Of course he does. But that doesn't change the fact that increasingly being unnecessarily forthcoming will expose you to harm. The smarter move is to be very careful about what you reveal to anybody.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 31 Oct 2015 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He should have been even more honest and said, "That's none of your business."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:55am

It can't hurt to ask .... oh wait a sec, yes it can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Cortright (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:34am

So what about reporters with leaked documents?
Are reporters now on the hook for copyright infringement when a document is leaked to them that they subsequently report on? Libraries for letting people take screenshot scans of copyrighted materials in their collection?

Sounds like a really horrible precedent. We can only hope it will get corrected on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:06pm

Abolish Copyright
Enough already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re: Abolish Copyright
  Can't. Trade treaty obligations.
  
  Why do you hate free trade? Don't you know that free trade is good?
  
  etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
    Free trade is just smoke and mirrors. Fair Trade is where its at, but sorry, fair trade ain't republican.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:33pm

Interlibrary loan?
A large academic library does this exact thing literally a hundred times per day for students, for other universities, for local businesses, and for political groups and non-profits.

It's part of what makes a library a library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:45pm

Following Deputy Judge Gilbert's logic - is it bank robbery if I accept money that has been in a bank safe in some distant past?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:46pm

Does that make share buttons illegal, or copy paste?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 12:58pm

I don't get it he was not a subscriber therefore he wasn't under their terms of service, that judge must be getting some freedom of speech shoved in his pocket/bank account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:07pm
  
  Re:
  I don't get it he was not a subscriber therefore he wasn't under their terms of service, that judge must be getting some freedom of speech shoved in his pocket/bank account.
  
  This case has nothing to do with terms of service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 1:09pm

Had that article been part of a physical magazine or newspaper would the same thing happen if the friend had given the defendant his copy? My family gives each other magazines and newspapers when we're done reading them. If the publishers were to tell us that subscriptions are per person and not per household our subscription rate would go down to zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  Had that article been part of a physical magazine or newspaper would the same thing happen if the friend had given the defendant his copy?
  While I am neither Canadian, nor particularly conversant with Canadian copyright law, I do happen to be a native speaker of the English language.
  
  I note, from paragraph 22 of the decision, an extract from the Canadian Copyright Act, listing discrete rights subsumed by copyright, in particular:
  (j) in the case of a work that is in the form of a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as that ownership has never previously been transferred in or outside Canada with the authorization of the copyright owner
  (Emphasis added.)
  
  Giving the words their plain and natural meaning, it seems to me that if you loan a piece of paper with the definite expectation of getting that piece of paper returned to you, then that doess not “transfer ownership of the tangible object.”
  
  Otoh, if you just hand someone a newspaper, and say, “I'm done with this, please wrap up the dead fish bones and toss them in the trash” —well, then that is at least an abandonment of the ownership of a tangible object.
  
  But, of course, if you had paid for the fish-wrap before handing it off to another person for garbage, then ownership would have “previously been transferred in or outside Canada”.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aglynn (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 7:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    This points to the problem at the root of any "intellectual property" law - it's not a tangible object. Historically, the notion of object itself derives from the notion of tangible, personal property, not the other way around. Originally property was divided into personal property and real property, the 'real' in the latter survives in the term 'real estate', and referred generally to land and structures on that land that could be rented out. However renting out 'intellectual property' as paywalled sites do, which is neither personal property (in the sense of a tangible object) or real property (in the sense of real estate) is a conflation of two inadequate analogies. Price is based on scarcity. Anything that can be infinitely reproduced for little to no cost will never qualify as scarce enough to command a reasonable price. As a result we need something completely different than copyright in order to compensate creators of ideas for their work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BernardoVerda (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re:
  The advertising rate of a physical periodical is in part based on the notion of it's "recirculation" ratio -- how many people will likely end up looking at a typical copy.
  
  So the guy that glances through the sports section of the paper that gets left on the Starbuck's table, the lady who checks out the fashion pages, the person who browse the travel section on checks their horoscope -- all are valuable, additional audience that allows the publisher to charge and justify a higher rate for his advertising space.
  
  Heck -- if your publication is any good, this is "free advertising", not "piracy" to sue over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 1:23pm

Personaility Rights?
Couldn't he go after them for using his life as part of a story without his permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2015 @ 2:11pm

Right of access?
From the decision:
44. What is evidentially clear is that access to the full article was obtained without colour of right and without permission from the author or publisher. . . .

But go back to paragraph 22 of the decision, setting out the relevant portion of the Canadian Copyright Act.
For the purposes of this Act, “copyright”, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right
[ (a) through (j) ]
and to authorize any such acts.
Where does this Act grant the copyright owner the right to control “access” to the work?

Obviously, the production or reproduction of the work in copies, and sale of the same, does partially and indirectly control access to the work. If one cannot lay hands on a copy, then it seems that one does not have ”access”.

But the rights to make and vend copies do not seem quite synonymous with a general and complete right to control “access”.

Where does this Act say “access”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nomad of Norad, 29 Oct 2015 @ 7:12pm

Appeals?
Can this horrendously out of line fine be appealed to a higher court?

In any event, there need to be laws absolutely OUTLAWING fines that are way larger than the actual list price of the thing being "ripped off." I.e. if someone is charged with circumventing the copy protection on a $50 video game, then they should only be fined the price of the video game or thereabouts, i.e. not more than twice the price.

In any event, what in the sphincter of Hell is a news article doing placed behind a $240 paywall? If I had my druthers, that NEWS COMPANY would be fined $10,000 for PRICE GOUGING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2015 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re: Appeals?
  I.e. if someone is charged with circumventing the copy protection on a $50 video game, then they should only be fined the price of the video game or thereabouts, i.e. not more than twice the price.
  
  But if the only penalty for stealing something is about the cost of buying it, that's really not a penalty. The penalty needs to be substantially greater than the price of the item. Not 36 times as much, but significantly more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2015 @ 12:59am
    
    Re: Re: Appeals?
    Court costs, time and your name being splashed across media is not an additional set of penaltys?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 6:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Appeals?
      Court costs, time and your name being splashed across media is not an additional set of penaltys?
      
      Possibly, I'm not sure if those are taken into account in criminal sentencing or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 30 Oct 2015 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Appeals?
    penalties for wrongdoing belong in the criminal code, the civil code should be for reparations. To do otherwise invites corruption.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2015 @ 7:46am

Don't play by the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy Canuck, 30 Oct 2015 @ 8:10am

Ok, I get that it's a copy as opposed to giving a physical item, like giving a book you own to a friend to read, but that seems like a petty argument.

If a person downloads the item onto a USB drive and gave that to their friend to read, would that be circumventing the copyright? There was no multiple copies of the file made, the original person has no access to the file until the person returns their USB stick to them. I'm going to guess this gets complicated with the whole licensing vs owning issue with digital media.

What happens if I have paid for cable TV access at home. One day while I'm out, I have a friend watch over my place. They do not have cable TV. They now watch a movie on one of the premium channels I have. Would that mean the MPAA or movie studio would be able to try to sue them for circumventing the copyright by going to my house to use my subscription to gain access to a movie they would not have otherwise been able to access? How about those groups of people who share a single Netflix account?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shajee Fareedi, 24 Feb 2017 @ 5:49am

KBridals
very nice article thanks for sharing this article :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]