Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Good Idea
said by karlmarx  :And exactly how would you PROVE someone dowloaded via a torrent? By definition, the torrent comes from MANY sites. What if I've only downloaded 99%s? Am I still in violation? I mean, I can't UNRAR only 99% of the file. Again, they can't ever PROVE that ONE PERSON uploaded or downloaded a torrent UNLESS they are the only source. An incomplete file is NOT PROOF of copyright violation. Sorry, but if I walk into a car dealership and only steal a tire off a car, I'm still guilty of theft, even though I can't drive the car away. |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | yes due to the fact you took physical property, nothing is stolen when you download, only a copy is created. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by Ebolla :yes due to the fact you took physical property, nothing is stolen when you download, only a copy is created. A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
1 edit | reply to Matt
said by Matt : Sorry, but if I walk into a car dealership and only steal a tire off a car, I'm still guilty of theft, even though I can't drive the car away. What if you've only made a copy of the tire?  |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Wait...how are you stealing a copy without paying...when you don't even have a copy of said item?
Aborting the download isn't akin to stealing whatsover, unless there's some category of law that addresses "intent to commit copyright infringement". Last I checked, infringement was rather a binary offense - either you've downloaded a copy of said material, or you haven't. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to jhboricua
said by jhboricua :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: »www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Wait...how are you stealing a copy without paying...when you don't even have a copy of said item? Aborting the download isn't akin to stealing whatsover, unless there's some category of law that addresses "intent to commit copyright infringement". Last I checked, infringement was rather a binary offense - either you've downloaded a copy of said material, or you haven't. If you only download a portion and not the entire work, you're right, there isn't a law covering that yet. But we're specifically talking bittorrent which means you are uploading as well, which facilitates (assists) others in copyright infringement.
See Secondary Liability: »www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/···acforum1 |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Now you're just talking double talk. You CAN'T quote a different law to charge someone with a 'supposed crime' from the first law. They are TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS. The first event is 'downloading the file'. the second event is 'sharing a file'. And again, I state, UNTIL YOU GET or GIVE 100% of the file TO ME, or get it FROM ME, you have NO PROOF that I actually did the transfer.
What if I created a fake rar file called 'brittney spears.mp3' and put it on a torrent site. UNTIL you get 100% of it from me, you have NO IDEA what it is. Period.
Again, if you want to use the law as a hammer to hit people, you have to follow the LETTER of the law, not the spirit. And mediasentry and the like are NOT following the letter of the law, they are making accusations based on incomplete information.
If I was serving up the file from a web server, THEN, and ONLY THEN, IF IT WAS REAL, could I be charged. Getting 'part' of a file from me, not the ENTIRE file from me, is NOT PROOF that a violation occurred.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
| reply to Matt
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(a) doesnt qualify as the bittorrent gains no money for person seeding.
(b)Same as (a)
(c)This you may be correct on, but the term "Commercial Distribution" implies money is involved as well. |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by jhboricua :said by Matt :A copy for which you haven't paid. So yes, it is stealing. Look up Title 17. Kindly point where in Title 17 does it say it is stealing. Ironically enough, it's under the section titled Criminal Offenses: » www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506Sub-sections B and C cover it pretty well. A good lawyer could argue for A as well. Ironically enough the word steal, stolen, stealing is not present there, so it begs to question how you reached such a ridiculous conclusion. As a matter of fact, the word steal, stealing, stolen are NOT present in the ENTIRE Title 17 copyright document. A good lawyer would know the difference between infringement and stealing, which is more than I could say about you.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | reply to TheWickerMan
Holy crap, could you imagine the effect of Star Trek's replicator today? The entire population in the Star Trek universe are breaking the law!
RIAA lawyer - "Mr. Worf, I'm representing the RIAA and you have been found guilty of downloading several operas. We demand you cease and desist or face the consequences".
Worf - "Of course. By the way, have you seen a Bat'leth in action?" |
|
