Quick question:
In today’s file trading programs, who is breaking the law: those who download content, those who upload content, or both? I tend to hear all three theories, depending on the source.
Any copyright lawyers want to give me a hand with some sort of definitive answer? Thanks.
A very short answer - violation of copyright is the act of copying. So as I understand it, it would be the copier - the downloader.
There is a much longer answer too, which would cast doubt on this - is the uploader “aiding and abetting”, or engaging in secondary infringement? What is the jurisdiction (local laws have different answers on this, I think)?
Both the uploader and the downloader are guilty of copyright violation.
Yes – it’s both. The downloader is making a copy, but the person making the file available is also making copies available, which violates copyright. If files are found on your computer, it doesn’t matter if you downloaded them or are sharing them out – you are liable.
well i’m not a lawer (however i don’t think any of goobers who answered earlier are). to answer the op with what i currently know. it’s all up in the air really. untill something more concrete comes along to cement the answer, your going to get answers as based on facts as the answers to the question “which is the ultimate softdrink coke or pepsi?”. of course it’s a trick question. the ultimate soft drink is mountain holler.
anyway here is my take on it.
a copyright is a legal monopoly on the production of the copyrighted item. anyway since the uploader is the only one making the copy (the downloader only recieves the copy), only the uploader has violated copyright.
yet another goober with a take.
Both of them are breaking the law. The person downloading the file is making an illegal reproduction, and the person providing the file is illegally distributing it. Reproduction and distribution are two rights reserved exclusively to the copyright holder, subject to the limitations in 17 USC ¤¤ 107-121. You can read them here.
And if you reproduce or distribute enough copies, you’ll fall afoul of 17 USC ¤ 506, which means criminal penalties, and darned strict ones at that.
Title 17 of the United States Code
Chapter 1
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
. . . .
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 101. Definitions
”Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means —
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
From this, I gather that it is only the uploaders who are breaking the law, in that they are the ones distributing it. Downloaders merely ASK for the file, and receive it if it is offered. Where then is their crime, aside from possibly beign guilty of “abetting” copyright infringement?
Mere sophistry will not excuse the theft. Downloaders initiate the copying process, which results in an illegal copy on their computer. No matter how you try to justify it, it’s still illegal.
InquisitiveIdiot -
Keep in mind s106 (1) “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;”
Downloaders are taking that which has been made available by the uploaders, and creating a copy that they then place on their storage device. So while the uploader can be held liable for violation of section (3), the downloader has violated section (1).
actually i believe the uploaders create the copy. the downloaders just recieve the copy.
The downloader initiates the process by ordering the copy; the uplolader for all it matters could be asleep or out of town. Whatever the technical description of the copying process, in any legal sense both the uploader and the downloader have equally copied a work.
but the uploader set his/her computer up to make copies, in essence, giving his/her permission for anyone to have a copy. to put it in a different light it’s like the uploader through a tape with a copy on it.
would you please explain the legal sense?
Huh? 
oops let me finsh that. it’s like the uploader through a tape with a copy on it to you.
Eh?
I think he means “the uploader threw a tape with a copy on it to you”, which would be a very good analogy if filesharing networks spewed unrequested files to random people. In general they don’t, and the downloader has to request the file, initiating the act of creating a copy.
The uploader doesn’t have the right to give permission to make a copy, so he is violating copyright by distributing copyrighted material without permission. He is “publishing” the work according to the law and thus is liable for copyright infringement.
The downloader is making a copy, which you can’t do unless you have permission. Since you’re requesting the file, the violation is willful.