Davenport Lyons going against file sharers

lord filbuster said:
Because that would get them into a LOT of trouble, besides, aren't there checks built into the SSL standard to prevent man in the middle attacks?
Click to expand...

I hope so. I keep meaning to investigate the more advanced side of SSL/TLS/SFTP/etc. but never get around to it.

I guess people would stop using things like internet banking if ISP interception became common practice.
 
OzyOly said:
Theft, or not theft. He's broken the law.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I'm not denying that. It just annoys me when people say that copyright infringement == stealing, when they're not the same thing really. I do think that - morally speaking - there is a difference between theft and infringing someone's copyright.
 
Dolph said:
Hurrah for yet more failure to take personal responsibility for your actions...
Click to expand...

You have proof this guy downloaded something illegally?

If this legal firm can't convince a court that their methods and claims are genuine, then why can't you accept that?
 
So apart from the obvious - don't illegally download stuff, whats the safest way to dowload? Or is no one safe if they download illegally... :O All this talk has got me scared...:confused:
 
Turtles said:
So apart from the obvious - don't illegally download stuff, whats the safest way to dowload? Or is no one safe if they download illegally... :O All this talk has got me scared...:confused:
Click to expand...
Downloading copyright material is not illegal in this country, the legal issue is with using methods like Bittorrent that simultaneously upload (thus distributing said copyright material).

From that you should easily be able to think of a number of ways to download legally.

OzyOly said:
But it's still wrong. Illegal = wrong mmkay?
Click to expand...
Depends how you do it. I download TV programmes, the odd movie and the odd game there's no demo for but I don't download illegally. If someone is downloading illegally I am not defending them, they deserve a fair judgement under the law, but I am just saying the "copyright infringement = theft" crowd is full of complete and utter retards who really don't know what they're talking about.
 
Last edited:
There was an interesting article over at Wired not so long ago about howthe Motion Picture Ass of America wanted to be able to have people prosecuted of infringement without them actually having any proof...

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement.


"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial.


"It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement," van Uitert wrote on behalf of the movie studios, a position shared with the Recording Industry Association of America, which sued Thomas, the single mother of two.
Click to expand...

source: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mpaa-says-no-pr.html
 
JBuk said:
thats a fair point but not to the tune of £800+ it isnt, that is just greed
Click to expand...

So is the idea that it's ok to get something for nothing because you can get off on a technicality.

sr4470 said:
You have proof this guy downloaded something illegally?

If this legal firm can't convince a court that their methods and claims are genuine, then why can't you accept that?
Click to expand...

Because accepting personal responsibility for your actions isn't about what technicalities you can abuse or what you can get away with?

The 'I won't get caught' or 'You can't prove it' attitude of many filesharers is something they have in common with the vast majority of criminals, whether their actions are criminal or not...
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Finally someone admits both parties are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I'm not saying Davenport Lyons are right, they almost certainly aren't, but neither is the OP just because he thinks he can get round their claims.

To claim anything else is somewhat akin to advocating that fraud or burglary is ok if you don't get caught or when you do get caught, you can get off on a technicality. Innocent until proven guilty is part of our legal system to protect the innocent, not for the knowingly guilty to hide behind and claim it's ok.
 
Dolph said:
Because accepting personal responsibility for your actions isn't about what technicalities you can abuse or what you can get away with?

The 'I won't get caught' or 'You can't prove it' attitude of many filesharers is something they have in common with the vast majority of criminals, whether their actions are criminal or not...
Click to expand...

I don't agree with using loopholes to protect yourself from illegal activities, and that goes for anyone - Davenport Lyons aren't making themselves seem any more honest or law-abiding than an illegal filesharer at the moment.
 
Deja Vu, much?

Dolph said:
Hurrah for yet more failure to take personal responsibility for your actions...
Click to expand...
Agreed, but then again if there is a good case that what DL are doing amounts to demanding money with menaces then someone needs to fight that case, or they'll just keep on raking in the profits - at both the downloader and software industry's expense. It may well be that both parties are in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom