torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Epsilon on 9 Apr 2010 18:51 Swampfox wrote: > 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? Which is pretty-well what the duscussion is about. It's not a black-and-white rule, but copyright holders don't sue those who may have breached copyright but don't do it for obvious commercial reasons, or damage the copyright holder's commercial interests. There are those, like the OP, who suspect that the situation will change. There is nothing around to suggest that it will. >>>>> 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??????? Are you asking if I breach Microsoft's copyright? Perish the thought! >>>>> 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: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 20:38 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8296ugFpdbU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >> 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. > So long as people realise that there is a real chance of being sued and that your name will go through the courts and media if this happens. Why not just buy the content legally? >> 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: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 20:50 "Loreen" <silverrings99(a)Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote in message news:hpn84g$vnt$1(a)tioat.net... >>> >>> 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. > They do go after the individual. See: http://www.zdnetasia.com/riaa-wins-court-case-against-u-s-file-sharer-62033073.htm http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital-life/games/nintendo-pirate-just-a-shy-gamer-dad-20100210-nrlr.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas >> 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: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 20:56 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:828aesFeddU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>> Not necessarily. > >>> And even if it is, so what if it takes a bit longer ? > >> Time is money. > > Like hell it is for most downloaders. > > In spades when it happens in the background as all P2P traffic does. > If it's too slow it defeats the purpose. It has to be less hassle than going to the video store, otherwise there's no point. >>>>>> When they download a file they are making available to others the >>>>>> parts of the file they have already downloaded. > >>>>> Not necessarily. > >>>>> And the reason that wont happen in Australia is because there are no >>>>> statutory damages like that here anyway. > >>>> That's not a reason in of itself that the litigation wouldn't be >>>> successful. > >>> Corse it is. > >> Not necessarily. > > Cant even manage its own lines. > > Its only that situation which makes a civil action against an individual > downloader viable. Damages could still be established. They may want to make an example out of some P2P users here. Would you want to be that example?
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 20:57
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:828akuFfjnU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Craig wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Craig wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>>>>>> It is rather important to get the facts right. These examples >>>>>>> are not of individual users who merely downloaded material in >>>>>>> breach of copyright. They also made the material available to >>>>>>> many others. They are the equivalent of retailers of pirated >>>>>>> software. > >>>>>> Yes, but by downloading via P2P you are uploading at the same time. > >>>>> Not necessarily. You can disable that. > >>>> Most P2P programs will slow your dowload speeds if you disable >>>> uploading. > >>> So it takes a little longer ? Hardly the end of civilisation as we know >>> it. > >> Time is money. > > Like hell it is with individual P2P downloaders doing the downloading in > the background. Time is the issue. If it takes 2 weeks to download it then the advantage to the downloader is lost. They might as well go to the music store. |