Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dvvega" data-source="post: 4657220" data-attributes="member: 524">@chriton227 re: your reference to the Dowling case.Actually according to Dowling himself he infringed copyright (not challenging those charges). What he did challenge was the concept of stolen goods since he didn't steal the music, the records, or packaging that he sent via the postal service.So even the person himself knows he was doing something illegal with copyright fraud. The supreme court's ruling creates an issue with file sharing since there is a near inability to detect if the files being shared are stolen or obtained legally - I buy a CD, I put it into iTunes (or other music program), I let you share files on my computer - to whit I have not dealt with stolen property and you have not either. Thus the court's ruling is that we haven't engaged in anything illegal regarding stolen goods.We have still infringed copyright law. Dowling did not get that part of his charges overturned or challenged.There was also a poster who mentioned something about copyright laws in Italy and if it allowed Ema to do what he did. Yes each country has their own copyright laws, however each country as also agreed with each other country that copyright laws from external places will be enacted inside their borders. This is why certain countries get away with bootlegging movies and music because they have not signed such agreements and given no such assurances.From what I have read about Ema's case (and from looking at a sheet I printed out from his website a while ago) he has infringed on WOTCs copyright. Thus they are within their rights to protect their copyright across any country borders that have made the copyright agreements. This includes Italy.Has he stolen from WOTC? No. He has bought a book, scanned/typed in material within that book, and placed it in an accessible location. So it would fall under the Dowling rulings.Has he infringed copyright? Yes.D</blockquote>

Verification