torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Swampfox on 9 Apr 2010 06:08 Craig wrote: > "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message > news:hpmh6j$osa$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> >>> What a stupid thing to say. How does this help the first P2P >>> defendant in Australia? Is that a defence in court - to say that no >>> one has been sued on this basis before? There is always a first. >> >> When you assess the risk of being sued for breach of copyright, you >> look around to see what copyright holders, generally, are doing. If >> your answer is that they have no sued anyone, and that the >> likelihood of them suing anyone in the future is small, it's a >> reasonable step to saying that the risk is small. >> > > Your analysis would fail for the first ever defendant in a > jurisdiction. Are you advocating that people just wait for someone > else to get sued first and pray it's not them first? > > The likelihood of them suing is the better point. What is it that > makes you think the likelihood is small in Australia? The likelihood of them suing isn't relevant, the only thing that's relevant is the likelihood of a copyright holder suing successfully. I'm certain that the RIAA and their Australian cohorts would like nothing better than a successful action in Australia, either against an ISP or their clients, but so far that hasn't happened and the iiNet decision has made it even more unlikely. If the chance is one in a million then most people will take that chance, you've probably got more chance of being attacked by a shark.
From: Epsilon on 9 Apr 2010 08:37 Swampfox wrote: > Epsilon wrote: > > <snipped> > >>> It's not a special case by any standards. >>> The person in question was the first to make a new release game >>> available for download, in this case it was a Nintendo game but I >>> have little doubt that Sony, EA Games or any other publisher would >>> have taken similar action. >> >> Maybe. The reason being that it's obviously a special case. > > Most people download and share, some upload and seed. > The only thing special about this case was that the game in question > had just been released and it was the first copy posted on the > internet. >> >>> As I said before, anyone that uploads any >>> copyrighted material at all via P2P is running the risk of >>> prosecution in Australia, >> >> Prosecution? That's criminal stuff. You won't find any individual >> in Australia downloading copyrighted material being pursued in a >> civil action, much less criminal proceedings, unless they are acting >> as a retailer. > > Semantics, I'm sure you knew what I meant. In the context of a discussion of the legal liability of a copyright infringer, the language used is important. It is especially so here, because there is really a serious criminal liability under the copyright legislation for those who engage in the commercial breach of copyright of this kind of product. >>> as distinct from a person downloading the >>> same material and sharing it with others in the process. >> >> What is the difference between those processes? > > The person who initially uploads the offending item is far more > likely to be pursued than those who subsequently download and share > it, at least in Australia. > You do know how P2P works? My point is that a person who makes material available to others in breach of copyright can do the same commercial damage to the copyright holder, whether they simply "share" or sell a pirated disk or upload the material. There is no fundamental difference. Potentially, the commercial damage could be greater in the upload process because it can be reached by many more people. >>> Downloading copyright material is endemic in Australia >> >> And in many other countries. That's why there are methods used by >> copyright holders to prevent or limit pirated material being used. > > Not very successfully it seems. Depends on the product. Ask Microsoft, for example. >>> and as far as >>> I'm aware no one has ever been prosecuted for it, >> >> Because the law doesn't make it a criminal offence, unless it's >> something of a business activity, which is not the subject of concern >> here. >>> the young fella in >>> Brisbane who posted the game was very foolish. >> >> Clearly. >> >>> If piracy were to be abolished overnight it would signal the end of >>> broadband plans with high data allowances, I doubt that the ISP's >>> would be too happy. >>> But that's another story.
From: Loreen on 9 Apr 2010 08:55 Swampfox wrote: > Craig wrote: >> "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message >> news:hpmh6j$osa$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> >>>> What a stupid thing to say. How does this help the first P2P >>>> defendant in Australia? Is that a defence in court - to say that >>>> no one has been sued on this basis before? There is always a >>>> first. >>> >>> When you assess the risk of being sued for breach of copyright, you >>> look around to see what copyright holders, generally, are doing. If >>> your answer is that they have no sued anyone, and that the >>> likelihood of them suing anyone in the future is small, it's a >>> reasonable step to saying that the risk is small. >>> >> >> Your analysis would fail for the first ever defendant in a >> jurisdiction. Are you advocating that people just wait for someone >> else to get sued first and pray it's not them first? >> >> The likelihood of them suing is the better point. What is it that >> makes you think the likelihood is small in Australia? > > The likelihood of them suing isn't relevant, the only thing that's > relevant is the likelihood of a copyright holder suing successfully. There isn't much doubt that a copyright holder could find an individual who has breached copyright. In the real world, copyright holders don't sue such an individual, for normal commercial reasons. Microsoft, for example, just doesn't sue an individual who has merely breached its copyright. > I'm certain that the RIAA and their Australian cohorts would like > nothing better than a successful action in Australia, either against > an ISP or their clients, but so far that hasn't happened and the > iiNet decision has made it even more unlikely. They would much prefer to target the ISP rather than the ISP's clients, for obvious reasons. They won't go after the ISP's clients if the client merely breaches copyright. It's usually that way. Target the seller, not the buyer-user, as with any illicit item. > If the chance is one in a million then most people will take that > chance, you've probably got more chance of being attacked by a shark.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 13:37 Swampfox wrote > Craig wrote >> Epsilon <not(a)this.address.com> wrote >>>> What a stupid thing to say. How does this help the first P2P >>>> defendant in Australia? Is that a defence in court - to say that >>>> no one has been sued on this basis before? There is always a first. >>> When you assess the risk of being sued for breach of copyright, you look around to see what copyright holders, >>> generally, are doing. If your answer is that they have no sued anyone, and that the likelihood of them suing anyone >>> in the future is small, it's a reasonable step to saying that the risk is small. >> Your analysis would fail for the first ever defendant in a >> jurisdiction. Are you advocating that people just wait for someone else to get sued first and pray it's not them >> first? >> The likelihood of them suing is the better point. What is it that makes you think the likelihood is small in >> Australia? > The likelihood of them suing isn't relevant, the only thing that's > relevant is the likelihood of a copyright holder suing successfully. Thats not true either. Even if you get sued and win, that can cost quite a bit if you arent game to take the risk of not using a lawyer and not all those who win necessarily get costs awarded in their favor and not all of those who do get costs awarded in their favor get all their costs paid either. > I'm certain that the RIAA and their Australian cohorts would like nothing better than a successful action in > Australia, either against an ISP or their clients, but so far that hasn't happened and the iiNet decision has made it > even more unlikely. Yes, but it would have cost iinet quite a bit even when they won. > If the chance is one in a million then most people will take that chance, Yes. > you've probably got more chance of being attacked by a shark. Not if you dont swim in the ocean. Some are that mindlessly paranoid/neurotic. And yes, I do use P2P and do upload.
From: Swampfox on 9 Apr 2010 18:08
Epsilon wrote: > Swampfox wrote: >> Epsilon wrote: >> >> <snipped> >> >>>> It's not a special case by any standards. >>>> The person in question was the first to make a new release game >>>> available for download, in this case it was a Nintendo game but I >>>> have little doubt that Sony, EA Games or any other publisher would >>>> have taken similar action. >>> >>> Maybe. The reason being that it's obviously a special case. >> >> Most people download and share, some upload and seed. >> The only thing special about this case was that the game in question >> had just been released and it was the first copy posted on the >> internet. >>> >>>> As I said before, anyone that uploads any >>>> copyrighted material at all via P2P is running the risk of >>>> prosecution in Australia, >>> >>> Prosecution? That's criminal stuff. You won't find any individual >>> in Australia downloading copyrighted material being pursued in a >>> civil action, much less criminal proceedings, unless they are acting >>> as a retailer. >> >> Semantics, I'm sure you knew what I meant. > > In the context of a discussion of the legal liability of a copyright > infringer, the language used is important. It is especially so here, > because there is really a serious criminal liability under the > copyright legislation for those who engage in the commercial breach > of copyright of this kind of product. I'm no lawyer but it's hard to see a commercial advantage being gained by posting copyright material via P2P. So no commercial advantage, little likelihood of being sued? > >>>> as distinct from a person downloading the >>>> same material and sharing it with others in the process. >>> >>> What is the difference between those processes? >> >> The person who initially uploads the offending item is far more >> likely to be pursued than those who subsequently download and share >> it, at least in Australia. >> You do know how P2P works? > > My point is that a person who makes material available to others in > breach of copyright can do the same commercial damage to the > copyright holder, whether they simply "share" or sell a pirated disk > or upload the material. There is no fundamental difference. > > Potentially, the commercial damage could be greater in the upload > process because it can be reached by many more people. > >>>> Downloading copyright material is endemic in Australia >>> >>> And in many other countries. That's why there are methods used by >>> copyright holders to prevent or limit pirated material being used. >> >> Not very successfully it seems. > > Depends on the product. Ask Microsoft, for example. You pay for Windows??????? > >>>> and as far as >>>> I'm aware no one has ever been prosecuted for it, >>> >>> Because the law doesn't make it a criminal offence, unless it's >>> something of a business activity, which is not the subject of >>> concern here. >>>> the young fella in >>>> Brisbane who posted the game was very foolish. >>> >>> Clearly. >>> >>>> If piracy were to be abolished overnight it would signal the end of >>>> broadband plans with high data allowances, I doubt that the ISP's >>>> would be too happy. >>>> But that's another story. |