<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Marcos Marado wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><blockquote type="cite">Se for um limite do próprio direito do autor, significa que quando o<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cidadão faz uma cópia privada não está a prejudicar o autor.<br></blockquote><br>A "tese" apresentada na directiva é que ao fazeres uma cópia privada porque a <br>podes fazer podes potencialmente estar a prejudicar o autor em relação ao que <br>aconteceria se ele não tivesse a limitação. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; ">The concept of harm is problematic, and has failed to acquire a coherent meaning. From the jurisprudence on awarding damages, harm in law is likely to be interpreted as a lost licensing opportunity, i.e. a fee that could have been charged.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; "><span style="font: 7.9px 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; ">However, there is a circularity here: if there is a copyright exception, there is no infringement, and no licence could have been issued. Thus by definition there is no harm in law from a permitted activity."</span></div><div><br></div><div>in <a href="http://www.cippm.org.uk/pdfs/copyright-levy-kretschmer.pdf">http://www.cippm.org.uk/pdfs/copyright-levy-kretschmer.pdf</a></div><div><br></div><div>Paula</div></div></body></html>