3 ms·

Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution because it's the legal entity that is the company that's usin

Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution because it's the legal entity that is the company that's using it. The internal employees actually watching/changing the content are simply acting as the agents of that legal entity. Therefore only the legal entity that is the company needs to have rights to the content, not the employees. For instance, you can install windows on computers at work (which definitely is distribution), without the rights to do so. Only the company needs said rights. That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities.

dahart 8y ago
> Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution. It seems like you’re conflating copyright rules with licenses. The copyright rules are not different for companies than for individuals; without the right to copy, no entity, person or company, other than the copyright holder and license holders, can do so legally. It’s fairly simple. > That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities. Also not true. Copyrights belong to the author/creator of a work, they protect the author, they grant the author exclusive right to copy the work. This protection does not differentiate or change based on who wants to copy the work. Licenses are what apply differently to different legal entities. > The internal employees actually watching/changing the content are simply acting as the agents of that legal entity. That’s only true when the content has been licensed to the company for company-wide internal use. If the content was licensed to an individual and then distributed internally to a company, co-workers might not be allowed to consume that content, depending on the license. Furthermore, some content can be licensed to an individual at a company, such that the same individual is not allowed to use that content outside of work, and no other individuals at the company can use it either.
- candiodari 8y ago
  > This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution. It's only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that's not distribution. But yes, one would hope that there was a license for the thing being distributed, to the company, before this happened. > That’s only true when the content has been ... In the sense that licenses are contracts, and can contain any restrictions you want. On the other hand, if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it (e.g. letting a copy of word get used by whichever secretary the temp agency sent this week) is perfectly legal, and very, very, very common.
  - dahart 8y ago
    > It’s only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that’s not distribution. Again, the only way what you said is true is after the company is licensed to copy, and specifically for company wide use. Before the company is licensed, copying anything internally to any other employees, even agents of the company, is distribution, and illegal, always. People are legal entities from the copyright law perspective, and the right to copy belongs to the author. So, it doesn’t matter if a person in a company is an agent or not, it’s a copyright violation when anyone else makes a copy of the work without permission, and it’s distribution and a copyright violation if that person shares with any other people inside their company. Being an agent of the company is irrelevant to a company that doesn’t have permission to copy. > if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it is perfectly legal No, that’s not necessarily legal unless the software’s license explicitly allows sharing. If the software is copied to the other person’s computer, and multiple people use it simultaneously, then it is illegal. If you copy it to the network and let anyone use it any time, then it’s illegal. If you let someone use your copy on your computer, then that’s legal. If you loan it to someone else, and erase it off your own computer while they have the software, then it’s legal. > and very, very, very common. That might be true, has no bearing on the legality. Sharing of music and movies and software is incredibly common, and also illegal.

dahart 8y ago

> Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution. It seems like you’re conflating copyright rules with licenses. The copyright rules are not different for companies than for individuals; without the right to copy, no entity, person or company, other than the copyright holder and license holders, can do so legally. It’s fairly simple. > That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities. Also not true. Copyrights belong to the author/creator of a work, they protect the author, they grant the author exclusive right to copy the work. This protection does not differentiate or change based on who wants to copy the work. Licenses are what apply differently to different legal entities. > The internal employees actually watching/changing the content are simply acting as the agents of that legal entity. That’s only true when the content has been licensed to the company for company-wide internal use. If the content was licensed to an individual and then distributed internally to a company, co-workers might not be allowed to consume that content, depending on the license. Furthermore, some content can be licensed to an individual at a company, such that the same individual is not allowed to use that content outside of work, and no other individuals at the company can use it either.

candiodari 8y ago
> This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution. It's only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that's not distribution. But yes, one would hope that there was a license for the thing being distributed, to the company, before this happened. > That’s only true when the content has been ... In the sense that licenses are contracts, and can contain any restrictions you want. On the other hand, if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it (e.g. letting a copy of word get used by whichever secretary the temp agency sent this week) is perfectly legal, and very, very, very common.
- dahart 8y ago
  > It’s only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that’s not distribution. Again, the only way what you said is true is after the company is licensed to copy, and specifically for company wide use. Before the company is licensed, copying anything internally to any other employees, even agents of the company, is distribution, and illegal, always. People are legal entities from the copyright law perspective, and the right to copy belongs to the author. So, it doesn’t matter if a person in a company is an agent or not, it’s a copyright violation when anyone else makes a copy of the work without permission, and it’s distribution and a copyright violation if that person shares with any other people inside their company. Being an agent of the company is irrelevant to a company that doesn’t have permission to copy. > if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it is perfectly legal No, that’s not necessarily legal unless the software’s license explicitly allows sharing. If the software is copied to the other person’s computer, and multiple people use it simultaneously, then it is illegal. If you copy it to the network and let anyone use it any time, then it’s illegal. If you let someone use your copy on your computer, then that’s legal. If you loan it to someone else, and erase it off your own computer while they have the software, then it’s legal. > and very, very, very common. That might be true, has no bearing on the legality. Sharing of music and movies and software is incredibly common, and also illegal.