torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 05:27 Craig wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> 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? Thats one way of doing it. > If so, are you going to get good speeds from a free redirector? Yep. > Why would they give you so much bandwidth for free? Because they get it at no marginal cost themselves.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 05:31 Craig wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> 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. Like hell it is for most downloaders. In spades when it happens in the background as all P2P traffic does. >>>>> 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.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 05:33 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. >>> 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? Yep.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 05:34 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.
From: Swampfox on 9 Apr 2010 05:54
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. > >> 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? > >> 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. > >> 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. |