First of all, just because software is available via P2P does not scientifically prove that anyone is using the software illegally. Usage and copyright are two different legal pursuits.
As far as I'm concerned, VSL has done an excellent job thwarting illegal "use". Both via their excellent usage agreement, and via their usage protection mechanisms.
No one can stop copying. In fact copying is legal until you determine the intent of the copying. Under US Law, copying is allowed for educational purposes. There is no exception to that rule. It is what fuels progress according to our constitution. It could never be revoked as it's built-in to how this country exists fundamentally.
So I cannot speak fo rother countries, but here, if you are not profiting from the copied material, or using it illegally, than you are allowed to copy.
However, there is the implication that once you place an original on a P2P network that it will be copied, with the foreseeability of "illegal use". Under that pretext, one can prosecute offenders. Especially the "host". Because P2P has a built-in implication that NOT everyone is using copies for educational purposes.
The most common and rampant form of copying is called BACKUP. The reason it's legal is becuase the intent of use doesn't even exist. It is only there to replace an original should the original become damaged. You NEVER use your backup. There is no intended use, not even for educational purposes.
So as you can see, it's important to differentiate between "copying" and "intended use". You can only prosecute for around 40%-90% of actual copying/usage activity. And even then you need evidence to effecetively prosecute, let alone to get a judge to allow you to even have a trial (you can't just go prosecuting everybody unless you have evidence).
Just thought I'd add that food for thought.
Evan Evans
As far as I'm concerned, VSL has done an excellent job thwarting illegal "use". Both via their excellent usage agreement, and via their usage protection mechanisms.
No one can stop copying. In fact copying is legal until you determine the intent of the copying. Under US Law, copying is allowed for educational purposes. There is no exception to that rule. It is what fuels progress according to our constitution. It could never be revoked as it's built-in to how this country exists fundamentally.
So I cannot speak fo rother countries, but here, if you are not profiting from the copied material, or using it illegally, than you are allowed to copy.
However, there is the implication that once you place an original on a P2P network that it will be copied, with the foreseeability of "illegal use". Under that pretext, one can prosecute offenders. Especially the "host". Because P2P has a built-in implication that NOT everyone is using copies for educational purposes.
The most common and rampant form of copying is called BACKUP. The reason it's legal is becuase the intent of use doesn't even exist. It is only there to replace an original should the original become damaged. You NEVER use your backup. There is no intended use, not even for educational purposes.
So as you can see, it's important to differentiate between "copying" and "intended use". You can only prosecute for around 40%-90% of actual copying/usage activity. And even then you need evidence to effecetively prosecute, let alone to get a judge to allow you to even have a trial (you can't just go prosecuting everybody unless you have evidence).
Just thought I'd add that food for thought.
Evan Evans