|reply to manfmmd |
Re: Well Karl....
said by manfmmd:The problem is that you are focusing on sites that promote copyright infringement (some would argue that they induce copyright infringement).
Once sites like TPB, Torrentz, ISOHunt, etc. have their Top 100 (or whatever) lists not being DOMINATED by protected content, THEN you will have a point...
When I download the latest Fedora or Ubuntu release, a WoW update, or a TAS video, I don't hit TPB or ISOHunt to get it. I get a torrent from Fedora or from Blizzard.
said by manfmmd:Well, this is absolutely correct, but only because (at least in the US) works are copyrighted by default the instant that they are created. That means that pretty much everything is copyrighted.
Until then, the VAST majority of "P2P" traffic consists of copyrighted content/intellectual property.
The question is whether or not you are authorized to download, not whether the work is copyrighted. Ubuntu consists primarily of copyrighted software (with some exclusions like SQLite, which is public domain) but I can still download it without committing copyright infringement because the various open-source licenses that govern Ubuntu give me explicit authorization to do so. Similarly, World of Warcraft is a copyrighted work, yet I can download it legally from Blizzard using BitTorrent since I am authorized to do so.
said by manfmmd:In 2005, SCOTUS introduced a new concept, "Inducement", which can create liability for the operator of a service or producer of a product if they operate it distribute it with the object of encouraging copyright infringement.
Until then, you're just being intellectually dishonest.
It can be compellingly argued that TPB (and other torrent sites) explicitly encourage copyright infringement, and are therefore illegal.
It is considerably more difficult to argue that P2P technologies (such as BitTorrent) encourage copyright infringement. BitTorrent clients, like web browsers, operating systems, and the Internet itself, merely facilitate copyright infringement.