If I ask you to make a copy of a magazine for me (and you do so), I have participated in the duplication of that thing without possessing it. It's not even aiding and abetting since I directed the action. This doesn't change if I've paid you to make a copy of the magazine for me, I presume. I'm still directing the duplication without possession. So what's different about ordering a magazine from a company, assuming I know that they're going to print another copy as a result of my request? Haven't I directed them to duplicate the magazine?
What am I missing?
I'm not sure I understand the other premise either. That Ritchie and Barger stand for the proposition that downloading is required for possession of an online image.
I think they stand for the proposition that viewing an image on a website is not possession. Because it's like looking at a painting in a museum. You and the painting are in the same place, but that doesn't mean you possess it.
However, lets say I walk up to the painting, rip it off the wall and paint clothes onto the 15th century nude. Now I've possessed it. But I haven't duplicated it.
The same thing can be done on the internet. Without downloading an image, you can digitally manipulate it. So what if you digitally painted clothes on a porn picture and reposted it. You have possessed the porn but the duplication was done to the de-porned image. Like "Work-Safe Pron"
Comments
If I ask you to make a copy of a magazine for me (and you do so), I have participated in the duplication of that thing without possessing it. It's not even aiding and abetting since I directed the action. This doesn't change if I've paid you to make a copy of the magazine for me, I presume. I'm still directing the duplication without possession. So what's different about ordering a magazine from a company, assuming I know that they're going to print another copy as a result of my request? Haven't I directed them to duplicate the magazine?
What am I missing?
I'm not sure I understand the other premise either. That Ritchie and Barger stand for the proposition that downloading is required for possession of an online image.
I think they stand for the proposition that viewing an image on a website is not possession. Because it's like looking at a painting in a museum. You and the painting are in the same place, but that doesn't mean you possess it.
However, lets say I walk up to the painting, rip it off the wall and paint clothes onto the 15th century nude. Now I've possessed it. But I haven't duplicated it.
The same thing can be done on the internet. Without downloading an image, you can digitally manipulate it. So what if you digitally painted clothes on a porn picture and reposted it. You have possessed the porn but the duplication was done to the de-porned image. Like "Work-Safe Pron"