As above - his answer was better than my analogy.
You also have to think that the law changes from country to country. What is illegal in this country is not in others.
M.
Pirate bay court case
- Thread starter Redgie
- Start date
As above - his answer was better than my analogy.
You also have to think that the law changes from country to country. What is illegal in this country is not in others.
M.
You have to also think that certain trackers randomly add IP's in there to annoy the MPAA which means that most of the times there prosecutions by Davenport Lyons (who are a bunch of crooks themselves) is incorrect and inconsistent.
M.
but it sitll comes down (for me atleast) to the fact that they (tpb) did not store any copyrighted material themselves
and made no money from their site
if you want to persue someone then they should go after the people that upload the content in the first place.
its like someone on a street telling me where to buy drugs , then going to buy the drugs from that person, and the police arrest the person that told me where to get the drugs, but not arresting me or the drug dealer...
silly
and made no money from their site
if you want to persue someone then they should go after the people that upload the content in the first place.
its like someone on a street telling me where to buy drugs , then going to buy the drugs from that person, and the police arrest the person that told me where to get the drugs, but not arresting me or the drug dealer...
silly
Aye it's a very good point. If they wanted to go after someone the person who leaked the content from the CD manufacturers would be a good start. There's always pre-released stuff flying about. However the industry as it is, is most likely sending content to Pakistan or India where it's copied to save cost so finding who released it is not going to happen anytime soon.
M.
M.
May I ask you if you have ever in your life taken a
pen/paper clip/pin/paper(of any sort)/ ect ect
from your work place of from friends or other places with out asking?
That would not allow you to download a movie that is showing in the cinema and you are limited to what they are showing on the TV
The only thing TPB has done wrong is how they handled request to take down torrents of copyrighted material thereby assisting people in getting illegal downloads.
But with if there was a law saying you couldn't tell people where to buy drugs?
It's odd that they are prosecuting for torrents, while people can legally buy digital tv recorders on the high street for the same purpose.
Awesome, I didn't know I could download shows before they've been broadcast here or get the latest version of Photoshop completely free with my PVR.
Recording from a live broadcast for timeshift purposes is totally legal. Making digital copies of copyrighted material without permission is not.
You are behind the times sir...
cant say how on here but you can,thats if you wanted to
In Phil99's defence I'd say he was being sarcastic... 
TPB will not take down torrents but how do the publishers know that what is being listed is actually true unless they download it? Then they themselves are uploading it and distirbuting the torrent so surely that brings into play some interesting questions?
M.
TPB will not take down torrents but how do the publishers know that what is being listed is actually true unless they download it? Then they themselves are uploading it and distirbuting the torrent so surely that brings into play some interesting questions?
M.
The principle remains the same.
A digital tv recorder makes a digital copy of copyrighted material without permission. So...
"Live broadcasts"? And here's me thinking that Eastenders is pre-recorded!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
When it is for personal purposes, it falls under the Fair Use act - the same act which allows you to record live radio, for personal purposes (which does not include distribution or making other copies).
But if I download a torrent for personal purposes I can still be slammed? Is it the act of distribution (via p2p) that makes the difference?
Yes, you are effectively sharing the copy write material with thousands of people. This is where davenport got its insane lawsuit figures (£14k+) and is also why usenet has to date stayed under the radar.
The principle remains the same.
A digital tv recorder makes a digital copy of copyrighted material without permission. So...
Not really, no.
Through the Communications Act you have a right to record any broadcast for timeshifting purposes, therefore you have permission to make a digital copy. No such permission exists 99.9% of the time when downloading torrents of TV programmes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
If you 'download a torrent' (and by download a Torrent I assume you mean "Download files from a P2P network") and that torrent is an index of illegally distributed files (and files YOU have no license to) then yes you will be slammed, because you'll be stealing content. Also, the distributor of that content will be slammed, and won't have his ass saved by the Fair Use act - because distributing content on the Internet is *not* for personal purposes.
I don't see why this is difficult for you to grasp.
Exactly, while you don't have permission to make a digital copy through a non-authorised means they are very, very unlikely to give a damn if you download it through http for example. Hence the reason people aren't sued for watching YouTube videos of copyrighted material that's been uploaded without permission.
The real issue as far as they're concerned is the distribution; if it's not available, people can't download it, hence the crack down on torrents.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,849
- Location
- Leeds
was discussing at work....
Rapidshare and the like, as you are downloading and not uploading, are you more safe (as it were) than a torrent...
Rapidshare and the like, as you are downloading and not uploading, are you more safe (as it were) than a torrent...