BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | reply to VirtualLarry
Re: So How's It Different From Gnutella? Well said, Larry.
There's some new discussion over at »yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=···7&tid=17 where some people seem to be rationalizing that trackers aren't really liable as central distribution points. I think they're dreaming.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
| an interesting fact i was told when in a lecture on copyright was that under law (at least uk law, not sure about us) it is NOT illegal to share a copyrighted piece of material, as you are not directly giving the material to the leech (they are taking it from you). it is, as we all know, illegal to own copyrighted material without copyright.
by that model, a tracker would not be breaking the law.
i personally can't understand how people are ever procecuted for copyright infringement. copyright law is unbelievably ambiguous. |
|
|
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 |
Funny you should resurrect this thread right after major tracker pointers including Suprnova were just shut down!
But your statement sounds backwards -- "they are taking it from you" when you distribute copyrighted material? So that means every person selling copies of new Hollywood releases on the street corner is completely innocent? It's the people buying who are the only criminals?
And I never heard it was "illegal to own copyrighted material without copyright". In fact, I really doubt it is. (And I'm no lawyer.) It would kind of make things like, you know, BOOKS, illegal to possess.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function
|
|
| The difference is, your street corner seller is selling for money - that's the illegal act, not the providing of copyright goods, but the providing copyright goods *for sale* |
|
