torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 02:20 "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. Most P2P programs will slow your dowload speeds if you disable uploading.
From: Epsilon on 9 Apr 2010 02:27 Craig wrote: > "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. 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. You might say that my assessment is stupid. That says something about you rather than me. >> 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 02:37 "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message news:hpmh6j$osa$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> >> What a stupid thing to say. How does this help the first P2P >> defendant in Australia? Is that a defence in court - to say that no >> one has been sued on this basis before? There is always a first. > > When you assess the risk of being sued for breach of copyright, you look > around to see what copyright holders, generally, are doing. If your > answer is that they have no sued anyone, and that the likelihood of them > suing anyone in the future is small, it's a reasonable step to saying that > the risk is small. > Your analysis would fail for the first ever defendant in a jurisdiction. Are you advocating that people just wait for someone else to get sued first and pray it's not them first? The likelihood of them suing is the better point. What is it that makes you think the likelihood is small in Australia? > You might say that my assessment is stupid. That says something about you > rather than me. > >>> They may be breaching copyright. But they will have to be doing >>> more than that to attract the copyright holder's attention. >
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 02:50 Craig wrote: > "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message > news:hpm8up$bnj$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>> >>>> It is rather important to get the facts right. These examples are >>>> not of individual users who merely downloaded material in breach of >>>> copyright. They also made the material available to many others. >>>> They are the equivalent of retailers of pirated software. >>> >>> Yes, but by downloading via P2P you are uploading at the same time. >> >> Not quite like those two examples, one from the US (which is not >> relevant here), and one from here where the person involved was >> obviously a dill. He presumably declared himself bankrupt, and the >> copyright holder would likely have got nothing, apart from the >> publicity. > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas > > Would you want to be the first Ms Thomas in Australia? Taint gunna happen.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 02:53
Craig wrote: > "Epsilon" <not(a)this.address.com> wrote in message > news:hpmd0m$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. Not necessarily. > 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. |