[SOSAGES]

UK filesharers worried about legal consequences should read this article at slyck, written by a British lawyer

The CDPA (Copyright, Design and Patents Act, of 1988) appears to be totally inconsistent with the BPIs (British Phonographic Institute) stated position. For example, section 5 (2) stipulates that "Copyright does not subsist in a sound recording which is, or to the extent that it is, a copy taken from a previous sound recording." Hang on, the term subsist means to continue in existence according to the legal dictionary. If copyright doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t continue in existence, then it doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t take a genius to work out that copyright actually ceases at the very point a copy of the original †“ or †œprevious sound recordingââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ� - is first taken. Surely then it is the person who first breached copyright who is actually responsible for all subsequent copies, and not those who simply follow on down the chain?

Translated into P2P terms, this appears to mean that the person who initially seeded copyrighted material almost certainly breached the terms of his license with the seller, and could be liable for losses and damages, but this doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t appear to apply to reseeded copies. Even if the court begs to disagree, this still amounts to the absolute defense of innocent infringement (S97):

†œWhere in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against himââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢à ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�