torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 03:34 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8281n5FsdkU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>> All it needs to know is the IP of the redirector. > >> Is the redirector a third party? > > Yes. > >> If so, they may be liable. > > And they choose to do that in countrys that just make an obscene > gesture in the general direction of any copyright holder that > attempts to work out the personal details of the downloader. > > Its illegal to disclose that data to anyone in some of them. > > And the data doesnt have to be retained either, so the > copyright holder can demand whatever they like, if its not > available, even their court system cant do anything about that. > > There is no way that the US legal system can require anyone outside > the US to keep records of who used the redirector and when. Wouldn't the redirector have to pass on all traffic to and from the P2P user? If so, are you going to get good speeds from a free redirector? Why would they give you so much bandwidth for free?
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 03:36 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8282fnF10eU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Craig wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>>>> 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. > >> If they don't their download speeds will be reduced. > > Not necessarily. > > And even if it is, so what if it takes a bit longer ? > Time is money. >>>> 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.
From: Epsilon on 9 Apr 2010 03:42 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? You are saying that. if there is a one in a million chance of something happening, that's too risky. You want certainty about the future. Why bother getting out of bed in the morning? You might have a heart attack, or be struck by lightning, or something, however improbable. > The likelihood of them suing is the better point. What is it that > makes you think the likelihood is small in Australia? The same likelihood that potential plaintiffs don't go around suing potential defendants, although all manner of rights may have been infringed. It's common experience. >> 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 03:56 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:82825mFuquU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. > >> Even if you could, the fact you are downloading is something known to the >> swarm. > > Not if you use a redirector it isnt. > > All the swarm ever knows is that someone else is using that redirector. Will a free redirector give you good download speeds?
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 03:56
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:82827oFv6vU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. |