Perfect Theo.
However Ghasley has said that the other person also owns a purchased copy of the same album. That has not meant that the record company has missed out on a sale.
Under those circumstances, and the assumption that the super-dooper digtal copy did not get exchanged for a consideration (ie there was no benefit to the issuer of the super-dooper digital copy being given to the other person, e.g money changes hands or he says that he'd mow the lawn for the next 3 weeks) then in my interpretation of the situation there would be no breach of the intent of the law.
I am not a qualified legal practitioner and you can't rely on my interpretation of any laws.
However Ghasley has said that the other person also owns a purchased copy of the same album. That has not meant that the record company has missed out on a sale.
Under those circumstances, and the assumption that the super-dooper digtal copy did not get exchanged for a consideration (ie there was no benefit to the issuer of the super-dooper digital copy being given to the other person, e.g money changes hands or he says that he'd mow the lawn for the next 3 weeks) then in my interpretation of the situation there would be no breach of the intent of the law.
I am not a qualified legal practitioner and you can't rely on my interpretation of any laws.