torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 01:39 "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message news:hpmd0m$hp3$1(a)news.albasani.net... > Craig wrote: >> "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message >> news:hpm8up$bnj$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>> >>>>> 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 quite like those two examples, one from the US (which is not >>> relevant here), and one from here where the person involved was >>> obviously a dill. He presumably declared himself bankrupt, and the >>> copyright holder would likely have got nothing, apart from the >>> publicity. >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas >> >> Would you want to be the first Ms Thomas in Australia? > > There won't be any Ms Thomas' in Australia. Least of all because we don't > have that statutory damages stuff that exists in the US. And also > because, although we have plenty of dills here, she was a special kind of > dill who, in the US legal jargon, "willfully" breached copyright. That > is, she deliberately put herself in the position of a retailer of pirated > copyrighted material. > > No-one has suggested that such people would not be subject to normal legal > action by the copyright holder. They get their just desserts. > > But, the fact remains that the individual downloader of material in breach > of copyright is not in that situation in Australia, and is at no great > risk of being pursued by the copyright holder in the courts. If they take > the step of making that material in breach of copyright available to > others, the situation is different, of course. But the P2P downloader is making the content available to others. When they download a file they are making available to others the parts of the file they have already downloaded.
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 01:48 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:827rs7Fv08U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Craig wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> Craig wrote >>>> Andy <nospam@> wrote >>>>> Craig wrote: > >>>>>> Yes, but at least you are not broadcasting to the world every time >>>>>> you download. > >>>>> I take it that you *don't* realise that your IP address is logged on >>>>> every web site/server you visit, right? > >>>> Yes, but that is different to P2P where while you are downloading a >>>> file the whole P2P swarm will know your IP address. > >>> Fat lot of use that is to anyone if you do the obvious thing and ensure >>> its not your IP. > >> How can you receive data from the swarm if the swarm doesn't know your >> real IP address? > > All it needs to know is the IP of the redirector. > Is the redirector a third party? If so, they may be liable.
From: Epsilon on 9 Apr 2010 02:00 Craig wrote: > "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message > news:hpmd0m$hp3$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> Craig wrote: >>> "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message >>> news:hpm8up$bnj$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 quite like those two examples, one from the US (which is not >>>> relevant here), and one from here where the person involved was >>>> obviously a dill. He presumably declared himself bankrupt, and the >>>> copyright holder would likely have got nothing, apart from the >>>> publicity. >>> >>> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas >>> >>> Would you want to be the first Ms Thomas in Australia? >> >> There won't be any Ms Thomas' in Australia. Least of all because we >> don't have that statutory damages stuff that exists in the US. And >> also because, although we have plenty of dills here, she was a >> special kind of dill who, in the US legal jargon, "willfully" >> breached copyright. That is, she deliberately put herself in the >> position of a retailer of pirated copyrighted material. >> >> No-one has suggested that such people would not be subject to normal >> legal action by the copyright holder. They get their just desserts. >> >> But, the fact remains that the individual downloader of material in >> breach of copyright is not in that situation in Australia, and is at >> no great risk of being pursued by the copyright holder in the >> courts. If they take the step of making that material in breach of >> copyright available to others, the situation is different, of course. > > But the P2P downloader is making the content available to others. When > they download a file they are making available to others the > parts of the file they have already downloaded. When you find someone in Australia who has been sued on this basis, I will agree with your assessment of the risk. Until then, the empirical, real world evidence is that the P2P downloader is not at risk in Australia. They may be breaching copyright. But they will have to be doing more than that to attract the copyright holder's attention.
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 02:10 "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message news:hpmfjp$mag$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> >>> There won't be any Ms Thomas' in Australia. Least of all because we >>> don't have that statutory damages stuff that exists in the US. And >>> also because, although we have plenty of dills here, she was a >>> special kind of dill who, in the US legal jargon, "willfully" >>> breached copyright. That is, she deliberately put herself in the >>> position of a retailer of pirated copyrighted material. >>> >>> No-one has suggested that such people would not be subject to normal >>> legal action by the copyright holder. They get their just desserts. >>> >>> But, the fact remains that the individual downloader of material in >>> breach of copyright is not in that situation in Australia, and is at >>> no great risk of being pursued by the copyright holder in the >>> courts. If they take the step of making that material in breach of >>> copyright available to others, the situation is different, of course. >> >> But the P2P downloader is making the content available to others. When >> they download a file they are making available to others the >> parts of the file they have already downloaded. > > When you find someone in Australia who has been sued on this basis, I will > agree with your assessment of the risk. Until then, the empirical, real > world evidence is that the P2P downloader is not at risk in Australia. > 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. > They may be breaching copyright. But they will have to be doing more than > that to attract the copyright holder's attention.
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 02:15
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:827s5nFjjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> 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. Even if you could, the fact you are downloading is something known to the swarm. |