Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, if it's the same "I" who do all four steps, some argument could > probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original > software's copyrigt, under the "it's the intended end result that > matters" doctrine. However, if the steps are done by different > parties, it will be difficult to point to an individual party who is > actually in violation.
Legally there isn't any problem here. Doing things with several people dividing up the steps is just as illegal as one person doing them all. A group of people acting in cahoots are just as liable as an individual doing the whole thing. What establishes "cahoots"? Well, basically, anyone who did any of the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total process. This is similar to conspiracy law, where taking an "overt act" to futher the conspiracy is illegal, even if that act isn't illegal in isolation. (For example, if I give you a knife as part of a mutual plan for you to kill someone with it, then I'm guilty of the act even though giving a knife to someone is, in itself, legal.)
