— 2 — Mr Justice Chan PJ: 3. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 4. It is a criminal offence to distribute an infringing copy of a copyright work in certain circumstances. Questions concerning two aspects of the offence are raised in this appeal, namely, as to what matter constitutes a “copy” capable of distribution; and when conduct is capable of constituting “distribution”. These questions arise in the context of the unlicensed dissemination of copyright films via the internet using technology known as “BitTorrent” technology. A. 5. The charges on which the appellant was convicted The offence is created by section 118(1)(f) of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528) which provides as follows: A person commits an offence if he, without the licence of the copyright owner ... distributes (otherwise than for the purpose of, in the course of, or in connection with, any trade or business) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, an infringing copy of a copyright work. 6. The appellant was in fact convicted of attempting to commit that offence in relation to three films. However, the prosecution case has throughout been that infringing copies of those films were successfully distributed by the appellant via the internet. The reason why the prosecution resorted to the offence of attempt was to avoid any difficulties that might be posed by the requirement in the full offence of showing that distribution was to such an extent as to cause prejudice to the copyright owner. In this appeal nothing turns on the fact that the convictions were for attempt rather than for