• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re not talking about fair use though - which also is incredibly limited. It only applies to education, news or criticism. Fair use would be an authorised copy, by definition.

    and does not apply in the rest of the world.

    The specific ruling does not apply to the rest of the world, so there is no established precedent elsewhere that playing a pirated video game is an offense. This just means someone wishing to prosecute this offense would have no case law to back up their claim. However the principle that led to the ruling is the same - you need a license to make a copy (except for fair use, which as I say would rarely apply) and computers copy files internally in order to display their content.

    The uploader is the person creating the copy. Downloading is not creating a copy; downloading is receiving a copy.

    One person is providing a copy to someone else - that person is infringing copyright - and the person receiving is writing a copy to their device, and furthermore needs to make copies to display the content - that person is also infringing copyright.

    You can’t open a file like you would a book. You need to copy and process the file in order to display it.

    There has never been a successful prosecution for downloading only.

    There have been no prosecutions for downloading only because the level of damages is so low that it isn’t worth the cost of going to court. That doesn’t make it less illegal, it’s just more likely you’ll get away with it.