full-disclosure - Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice ofClaimedInfringement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <63675016-1112989976-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-26659-@engine70>
Date: Fri Apr  8 20:53:31 2005
From: jasonc at science.org (Jason Coombs)
Subject: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice
	ofClaimedInfringement

> The content inside is still fully usable
> and valid but a violation cannot be
> confirmed without yourself violating
> the law.

First of all, what law do you believe is violated by 'downloading' an unauthorized MP3 duplication of a recording?

Fair use doctrine covers this situation in a number of ways. For example, you do not violate copyright by downloading a file in order to find out what it is and where it came from, any more than you violate copyright by tuning into a radio broadcast. Somebody ELSE violates copyright if they broadcast a copyright-protected work, or distribute copies for download. You, as downloader, are fully within the fair use doctrine if you just receive, contemplate, and destroy upon recognizing that the work was not distributed by an authorized distributor/broadcaster.

How do you know what is and isn't authorized? Are you required to judge a book by its cover, even though the cover is nothing more than a filename in these cases? You are fully within the fair use doctrine if you download for the sole purpose of causing your computer to examine metadata that may allow you to determine the content, or if you contemplate the content with your senses by playback or access -- when and if you are satisfied that you have received a work that perhaps has not been duly licensed, you are in fact free to locate the copyright holder and negotiate a license.

Furthermore, in the get-a-clue department once again, the people who are doing the downloading to assist copyright holders with enforcement actions or investigations HAVE WRITTEN PERMISSION and therefore cannot be accused of violating the law by doing the download.

Why do people insist on spreading FUD when these are simple matters of intellectual property law and contract law that any person above the mental age of 14 has no trouble understanding when the facts are presented clearly?

Cheers,

Jason Coombs
jasonc@...ence.org