Interesting question. Most files also come in parts 01/02/03 etc so you have to download from multiple links. You aren't downloading the whole file at a time, it is only once you unrar it does it become completed.
Pirate bay court case
- Thread starter Redgie
- Start date
Interesting question. Most files also come in parts 01/02/03 etc so you have to download from multiple links. You aren't downloading the whole file at a time, it is only once you unrar it does it become completed.
Totally agree that it isn't totally clear, but by not taking down torrents of copyrighted material can be seen as helping people download illegal stuff, which is true and that is why they are convicted.
Well i would be willing to bet that both are just as easy to detect, however as i mentioned previously you are seeding to potentially thousands of people on torrent but only downloading to your own computer on usenet/rapidshare. When suing for damages the copy write holder will want as much moolah off of the person they're taking action against as possible to make it worthwhile. Someone downloading from usenet will only be liable for a fraction of that of a torrent user as they will actually sue a torrent user for DISTRIBUTING copy write material, not for actually downloading it.
So yes you are safer, but probably not because it's harder to detect but because copywrite owners probably can't be bothered to sue you.
I don't think that is a valid defence. A part of a file is still copyright material.
Nor do I think is encryption or compression a valid defence. As they are both still reproductions of the copyright material - just in a different format that happens to be password protected or smaller.
Nor do I think is encryption or compression a valid defence. As they are both still reproductions of the copyright material - just in a different format that happens to be password protected or smaller.
Indeed, sharing copy writed material, even if it's only part of it, is still copy writed material. It's like saying it's ok to scan an article from a magazine and sell it as your own as it's not the entire publication... or something.
Google can and DO de-list sites when asked to do so. It is NOT a difficult process. Both in the UK and the US the process is pretty much filling in a form and you're done. Google fully complies with these.
I was under the (possibly misguided) opinion that if all you were doing was downloading a file then you are not in fact in breach of copyright as it is the person who provided it for download that is breaching copyright?
With torrents because you also upload you then breach copyright?
With torrents because you also upload you then breach copyright?
I personally see little difference in it, but that is probably because most of my work is IP rather than physical so I see it as tantamount to stealing (which I know full well it isn't legally). But I was probably told at some point that it was the upload part of the torrent that was illegal rather than the download part of it. I bow however to your more knowledgable position and hold my hands up to my mistake!
Prove it has removed torrents. It's so hard to find any evidence that it has originally it decided that all torrents were illegal however this was overturned and now all torrents are listed. You search for .torrent and you'll see millions of them.
Distributing something (i.e. uploading) has always been frowned more upon than downloading as you are literally sharing the files and you can end up sharing the files to thousands of people (basically the seeds are the naughty people or the original seed to be more specific) and these are the main people they should be targetting. The old phrase 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink' springs to mind. You can list the torrents but you aren't forcing anyone to download them.
M.
I never said it has removed ALL torrents. I said that it de-lists websites when a legitimate request is made.
Correct - your point?
If you need evidence that Google de-lists content you only have to look at the 10-strong-team that the IFPI has spending all day getting stuff de-listed. As an aside, I'd imagine the IFPI don't have quite that many people working on it though because, having met John Kennedy, I wouldn't trust the words coming out of his mouth.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I can imagine all the Purple PC noob saying to the missus. What we could actually use this machine for something other than e-mail and bingo? lol
Wonder how many more hits the site got since the news on the bbc and one thing would invariably lead to another since it's human nature to be curious.
I remember challenging my dad to name a song I couldn't get in 5 mins. I won every time (that was several years ago of course) and the songs were so old that the copyright probably had died
50 years + heheBut I do wonder why the record companies like to promote piracy as much has they do.
Even when you buy a legit DVD first thing they say is DONT DOWNLOAD ANY DVDS. So basically informing everyone that it's possible.
Also whilst not condoning pirating when cribs is on TV I don't see them showing a bedsit in manchester.
Last edited:
Copyright survives for life + 70 years.I remember challenging my dad to name a song I couldn't get in 5 mins. I won every time (that was several years ago of course) and the songs were so old that the copyright probably had died
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...verdict-goes-english-and-we-dish-the-dirt.ars
The full verdict in English, shoots down and explains most of the defences people claimed should have applied and shows quite clearly why they were guilty in the eyes of the court.
The full verdict in English, shoots down and explains most of the defences people claimed should have applied and shows quite clearly why they were guilty in the eyes of the court.
