[I fixed your post for you.]
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I said, if the infringement of copyright is the act of
> "purchase",
> > > > > not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked
up.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Infringement is the act of "copying",
"distribution", or "public
> > > > performance/display".
> > >
> > > All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer,
not
> >
by the person who acquires the infringed material.
>
>
> Most likely, yes, and no one said otherwise.
*Bzzzzt*. You said "Each time someone downloads the page there is a
new infringement". That means that something done by the person who
acquires the material causes the infringement.
Each time we serve up copyrighted material is a new infringement. It's
not
hard to understand. Anthony happens to be correct
here.
Ah, so an action by the person receiving the material *does* cause an
infringement! Anthony said it didn't.
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the
infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.