 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Hard to be guilty of distributing anything.... ... when you never actually did it!
'Course, I doubt that will stop them. | |
|  | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| Re: Hard to be guilty of distributing anything.... said by KrK  :... when you never actually did it! 'Course, I doubt that will stop them. I agree. Don't the RIAA/MPAA have more juicy targets to go after? Its not rocket science. Even I can record IP addresses of people distributing copyrighted material if I wanted. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| He's still guilty of copyright infringment ... ... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: He's still guilty of copyright infringment ... said by PDXPLT :... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". I thought the courts held that downloading is not necessarily infringement. | |
| | | | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: He's still guilty of copyright infringment ... They have. But the RIAA has been great about brainwashing people on the issue.
In the US, downloading movies does fall into a different category that COULD get you in trouble. But downloading music is still perfectly fine in the eyes of both criminal and copyright law.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by ross :said by PDXPLT :... even if he just downloaded songs without permission of the owners. So at one level he's still guily. It's not as juicy a target, since the damages are limited to the value of licenses for the songs he downloaded, maybe X3 for willful infringement; eg. = 3 x #songs x $.99. 'not nearly as much as the damages for publishing for free, worldwide internet distribution, a.k.a. "uploading". I thought the courts held that downloading is not necessarily infringement. I don't think so. Can you quote any case law on that?
What the courts have held is that merely providing a download application does not constitute infringement; such an application can be used for lawful purposes, such as distributing content with the owners' permissions. Actual infringement must be proved, not just the potential for infringement. | |
| | | 
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
| Re: Hard to be guilty of distributing anything.... said by Nightfall :said by KrK :... when you never actually did it! 'Course, I doubt that will stop them. I agree. Don't the RIAA/MPAA have more juicy targets to go after? Its not rocket science. Even I can record IP addresses of people distributing copyrighted material if I wanted. Who cares about them. Let's talk about us and how we can get along as a society
I see a lot of arguing that's what divides us my friend
that's what allow them easier control over our freedom
to trade digital information.
we are in control of our life
not them
never give up your rights
never give in to scare tactics
for they are just a paper tiger that can be cut with paper scissors
 | |
| 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| The human brain is an amazing thing. It's long been known that if you tell yourself something for long enough, you'll probably start to believe it. Remember back in the 80's when we did the same thing, but we knew it was wrong? I guess we still have half of the equation going.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| xplornetsuck
join:2007-02-22
BC
·TELUS
 ·Xplornet
edit:
July 15th, @07:03PM
| RIAA and MPPA = Mafia Good to see our courts are still upholding the 'Burden of Proof' , that is in most countries.
Oh, wait a minute. They aren't.
These Computer users who are being dragged in to court, need to ask the judge to see hard evidence of a crime. And if none is found? Then ask the judge to jail the RIAA/MPPA for abuse of the courts and racketeering. | |
| karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Goes to show you the fact that he never UPLOADED anything is going to shoot a BIG hole in their entire argument. If he never uploaded, then they sure as hell didn't get any evidence that he was distributing, but the more serious question arises.
If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot.
They are going to drop this case like a bas case of the clap. They can't win, and they sure as hell don't want to set a precedent, or have their tactics called into question, which they should have.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | 
RedXII1234
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
localhost
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
ISDN
Fiber Optic
AOL Broadband
edit:
July 15th, @07:30PM
| The MAFIAA shouldn't be any more immune to distributing copyrighted material that isn't supposed to be distributed for free than any other person, even to catch people. They themselves are guilty.
And they should have no right to sue for fake files. After all, they are FAKE files. Unfortunately most lawyers, people in the jury, etc are probably not tech savvy and probably like "OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Goes to show you said by RedXII1234 :"OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" Too much Perl there buddy. | |
| | | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| said by RedXII1234 :The MAFIAA shouldn't be any more immune to distributing copyrighted material that isn't supposed to be distributed for free than any other person, even to catch people. They themselves are guilty. And they should have no right to sue for fake files. After all, they are FAKE files. Unfortunately most lawyers, people in the jury, etc are probably not tech savvy and probably like "OH it says '$movie' in the filename, so it must automagically be $movie!" I'd say I'm pretty tech savvy and I disagree with your position. | |
| | | | 
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC | Re: Goes to show you why? | |
| | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: Goes to show you The xxAA is of course likely authorized by the copyright holder to distribute the materials as necessary to enforce the copyright holders rights.
Copyrights are copyrights. Fake files or real files, a downloader, if not authorized to download files created by a copyright holder, is infringing the copyright holder's copyright. Fake file or not. The obvious caveat is that the downloader shouldn't be guilty of downloading a movie that has been renamed as a linux distribution or something that is public domain or open source, etc. | |
| | | | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Goes to show you No, fake = fake. A fake file by any measure used, is NOT copyright infringement. How can you accuse someone of copyright infringement if NO INFRINGEMENT occurred.
Now, if it's a REAL file, and they are authorized to distribute it, well, then, it's not copyright infringement, because by definition it's an AUTHORIZED download.
The only thing the MAFIAA does is look at the NAMES of files being shared, and make up accusations without ever getting proof. That, is called EXTORTION.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Goes to show you Are you still wading in the muddy water and not able to see the difference between right and wrong?
Simple truth is, if you download a file that you did not pay for and you are unable to validate that it is being offered for free by the owner, then you have violated the rights of the owner. The burden is on you to find out if it is legally offered. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't download it.
Simple truth is, if you upload or make available for download a file that you know you do not have rights to distribute you have violated the rights of the owner.
In both cases you should be punished and forced to pay restitution to the owner. | |
| | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| said by karlmarx :No, fake = fake. A fake file by any measure used, is NOT copyright infringement. How can you accuse someone of copyright infringement if NO INFRINGEMENT occurred. Now, if it's a REAL file, and they are authorized to distribute it, well, then, it's not copyright infringement, because by definition it's an AUTHORIZED download. The only thing the MAFIAA does is look at the NAMES of files being shared, and make up accusations without ever getting proof. That, is called EXTORTION. You are so wrong on so many levels, I don't think I can adequately address everything. You need to look at the copyright statutes a little more closely.
But on a very basic level just because I place something in a share folder on my machine, doesn't give you, the downloader, the right to copy it on to your machine. As the copyright holder or its authorized agent, I can (with a few exceptions) do what I want with my copyrighted materials. You, however, cannot. | |
| | | | | | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: Goes to show you I suspect the argument being made is, by simply placing a file in a folder which exists solely to contain material intended to be shared, there's implied consent on its distribution. If the copyright holder knowingly places a file on a network that anyone using same can easily use to gain access to that file (without hacking or using a non-approved way to gain access), then I further suspect that their claims of infringement would be harder to prove. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: Goes to show you I think you're right. Implied consent certainly would be the argument.
On the other hand, is that enough? If I know that I'm performing an act that is illegal, does it matter that implied consent was given?
I kind of look at this as busting Johns that frequent prostitutes. If an undercover cop is out there in prostitute garb, I doubt that provides implied consent to the John to have sex for money. It's the John's choice to take that next step.
At least one difference here, I suppose, is that the xxAA isn't a government body. I don't know how that plays into the equation, if at all. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Goes to show you I'm still wondering about the intricacies of suing for downloading. I would think the RIAA would have to prove the copyright holder never offered the material in any way (promotional use or otherwise) in order to have an iron clad case. If that's the case then shouldn't the onus be on the original uploader?
What if the music file was recorded from a radio broadcast where royalties are already paid out for this sort of thing? What if the file was never downloaded but simply burned from a copy the user already has (and it was in the same folder as suspected downloaded content)? What about situations where the user did own a hard copy, but it was damaged so they downloaded a digital copy (I recall and RIAA spokesman saying they have no issues with that)?
It looks like the music industry would be opening up a whole new can of worms trying to fight on this front. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: Goes to show you said by SRFireside :I'm still wondering about the intricacies of suing for downloading. I would think the RIAA would have to prove the copyright holder never offered the material in any way (promotional use or otherwise) in order to have an iron clad case. If that's the case then shouldn't the onus be on the original uploader? The onus is (or should be) on the person alleging the infringement. A signed statement from the copyright holder attesting to the fact that the copyrighted material was never offered freely is typically enough. It would then be up to the downloader to rebut that.
What if the music file was recorded from a radio broadcast where royalties are already paid out for this sort of thing? What if the file was never downloaded but simply burned from a copy the user already has (and it was in the same folder as suspected downloaded content)? What about situations where the user did own a hard copy, but it was damaged so they downloaded a digital copy (I recall and RIAA spokesman saying they have no issues with that)?
It looks like the music industry would be opening up a whole new can of worms trying to fight on this front.
Just because the radio station already paid royalties for playing the music, doesn't mean that the listener has the legal right to copy the music. In the past, I don't think it mattered, since off air recordings were not of very high quality and their was no mass-distribution system that would impair the copyright owner's ability to profit off the work. With the internet and digital music, that has changed. That being said, I still don't think it makes much commercial sense to go after a downloader, when it's the uploaders that cause much more harm to copyright holders' interests.
If the downloader can show that he holds an authorized copy of the copyrighted work, then I think there would be little the xxAA could do. It's not worth the effort to fight the fair use arguments etc. that would be made.
I don't think it necessarily opens up a can of worms. I think it would be a fairly easy to prove up infringement. But, it makes no commercial sense really and potentially may have pitfalls. Outcome of litigation is hardly ever certain. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| "What if the music file was recorded from a radio broadcast where royalties are already paid out for this sort of thing?"
Two different issues. When you're listening to an OTA broadcast you're participating in a performance (the performance of the song over the air is a non-interactive event) but when you record the broadcast you're fixing the performance. While you probably have the legal right to fix the performance for personal use (and I suspect that the labels would have an opinion on that) in no way does the performance rights of the broadcaster transfer to you, so by giving away or selling copies, you violate the property owner's rights of exclusive distribution (and possibly the broadcaster's right of OTA distribution). | |
| | | | | | | | |
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
| But doesn't the RIAA and MPAA currently try to sue people who have simply made the file available for download? Even when no actual download has occurred? They take the stand that you have indeed consented to that file being uploaded from your computer and shared.
If you take the argument that specific consent would be needed to legally download the file from them, otherwise it's still infringing, wouldn't there need to be specific consent for just a regular joe to be nailed for having a file available for other people to download as well?
Without that consent I didn't actually provide you permission to download anything from my computer. I simply made it available. Wouldn't that mean that I cannot be held liable for any infringement?
My feeling is you can't have it both ways (although I'm pretty sure they'll try).
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Goes to show you It's an argument. I'm not sure it's a winnable one though.
In your example, the person that's just storing the file in the upload folder can likely be nailed for contributory infringement. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
| We shouldn't be arguing on this issue
Do what you want
Don't you all know your rights
The freedom to share information be it digital or not
When someone copyrights something it is an infringement on our rights to share freely
It is them who decide to restrict our freedom and if you go against it is label as criminal
anything can be labeled as criminal
even using words like riaa and mpaa is considered copyrights
crazy world we live in and until the mass start to see the whole picture you're going to argue endless about this topic
a endless debates or dispute | |
| | | | | |
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
| said by Goober :The xxAA is of course likely authorized by the copyright holder to distribute the materials as necessary to enforce the copyright holders rights. Copyrights are copyrights. Fake files or real files, a downloader, if not authorized to download files created by a copyright holder, is infringing the copyright holder's copyright. Fake file or not. The obvious caveat is that the downloader shouldn't be guilty of downloading a movie that has been renamed as a linux distribution or something that is public domain or open source, etc. I do not care about the mpaa or riaa whatever association
they have nothing to do with me or you
they are privately owned for private interest for their own personal gain
if they get rich milking us as the society what benefits is it to the majority who can barely afford to eat, get on the highway and drive as much as they like.
I can only offer solution
I have no problems and never had any since the beginning of time | |
| | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Goes to show you Uhhh, ok . . . | |
| | | 
DownWitNorseFire
@startek.com
| The elites and the lobbyists can pay our "leaders" billions of dollars to amend copyright laws in their favour at a whim, and yet here we are arguing over the intricacies of uploading vs. downloading. These laws, consequently, are no more valid to us than the Divine Right of Kings or Taxation Without Representation. It's like an oil company who commits human rights abuses, engages in ecologically unsound practices, and violates labour laws while doing business in a third world country and then insisting on being compensated when the government seizes their land (And even Hugo Chavez engages in this very basic level of corporate welfare.). | |
| | | | |
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
edit:
July 15th, @07:47PM
| Re: Goes to show you said by Goober :said by karlmarx :If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot. I don't get what you're trying to say here. Can you please clarify? Why would they be shooting themselves in the foot? If I own the rights to something, or work for a company that does. And I give, or the company gives through me, you the ability to download it. Doesn't that mean it's an authorized download?
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| It's exactly as Jammer said. If they are PROVIDING the file, then, by legal definition, it is an AUTHORIZED download. Say that MediaSentry posted a DVD-Rip of Indiana Jones 4. There are 2 possiblities for that.
Option #1: It's a fake file. Thus, even if I downloaded it, you can't prosecute me, cause I haven't broken the law.
Option #2: It's the REAL file. And you are providing it, thus, YOU are authorizing me to download it, ergo, I haven't broken the law, because an authorized distribution was made.
They can't ever win trying to prosecute a downloaded. And, as this case shows, they can't win trying to provide an UPLOADER, either, UNLESS they get the ENTIRE FILE from a SINGLE PERSON. Period. 99% of a RAR file is just garbage, it takes 100% to have an 'unauthorized copyrighted work' to be exchanged. AND, if they don't download 100% from a SINGLE USER, then that user did NOT provide a copyrighted file.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | however the RIAA by providing those downloads is by default saying its a free download.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: Goes to show you said by Kearnstd :however the RIAA by providing those downloads is by default saying its a free download. That's not true. They placed the items in their share folders. But, they didn't authorize you to download them. | |
| | 
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC | I can't speak for Germany, but in some places (Canada, for example), downloading is perfectly legal. | |
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by karlmarx :If they try to nail him for DOWNLOADING, then the only WAY they could prove he downloaded would be to provide the file themselves, thus shooting themselves in the foot. Two flaws in your argument. The ??AA doesn't have to directly provide the file. If the watch a transfer from one client to the another, there is your evidence. Or if in one case they obtain a server that has logs of a transfer. It may not be enough by itself, but that's for the courts to decide.
The other thing is that the ??AA does not give up their copyright just by making it available and you downloading it. Just using bittorret or whatever does not automatically grant you a right to infringe on their copyright. | |
| | |
JammerMan79
Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC | Re: Goes to show you but then they wouldn't know if it was the actual file or just the name | |
| | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
edit:
July 16th, @05:51PM
| Re: Goes to show you They (the xxAA) could just download the same file. | |
| | |
See 11 replies to this post | |
id_deleted
join:2003-05-01
Salt Lake City, UT
edit:
July 15th, @10:23PM
| The RIAA already shot themselves in the foot with a cannon. Many radio stations are broadcasting a digital version of their stations over the public air-waves now.
Its called HD Radio, and a person can legally record songs broadcasted from the stations directly to individual "labeled" mp3 files if they have specific hardware and some software called HD RadioPC. Since the audio quality of the resulting mp3 files will typically exceed that of an mp3 you download or buy from sites like iTunes, are not the radio stations themselves guilty of copyright infringement?
How would the RIAA ever prove that someone did not use this method to obtain the mp3 files on their harddrive rather than illegally downloading them from the internet? The answer is that it would be quite impossible, as anyone who owns this hardware and software could never be succesfully prosecuted for any copyright infringement based solely on possesion of a copyrighted mp3 format song.
The motivation for HD Radio was simply to attract more listeners by providing CD qualty audio and thereby increase profits for the RIAA and the stations, aka "Greed". They were quite aware that the current legal statutes permit personal use recording of radio station broadcasts that use public air-waves, so the RIAA and the developers of HD Radio (Ibiquity) tried to thwart the posibility of recording HD Radio digitally by preventing any PC based HD Radio tuners from ever being sold to the public. It was really just a matter of time before someone managed to interface one of the existing tuners to a PC. Imagine where they are kicking themselves now that their nightmare has become a reality. LOL | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: The RIAA already shot themselves in the foot with a cannon. said by id_deleted :Since the audio quality of the resulting mp3 files will typically exceed that of an mp3 you download or buy from sites like iTunes, are not the radio stations themselves guilty of copyright infringement? Umm, no, since they have permission of the copyright owners to do so, and pay them licensing fees for it.  | |
| 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Modified Client Query Am I reading this report correctly to mean that the modified client was being used by this user to download the files but never share/seed them? Given that the user was never actually seeding this should have been obvious from the audit trail since the files would no longer be listed as available from his IPN once he finished downloading and recycling his client. Also it should never be shown as sending pieces to the monitoring client. | |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | how the judge should fine if guilty is the verdict .99 cents per track, i say this because as the person didnt upload they should only be out the retail value of the music tracks.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: how the judge should fine if guilty is the verdict said by Kearnstd :.99 cents per track, i say this because as the person didnt upload they should only be out the retail value of the music tracks. That's not how the statutes read. | |
| |
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
edit:
July 17th, @12:18PM
| said by Kearnstd :.99 cents per track, i say this because as the person didnt upload they should only be out the retail value of the music tracks. what you upload is your business
what you upload is none of their concern
they don't own me or you
we own them... that's what they don't want you to know.
stop being manipulated by these fear monger
you are in control of your own life
you make decision not them
do not be treated like a child
take responsibility and say enough is enough
we are a free sovereign country
we will do whatever the hell please us
our country is not founded on democracy
it is founded on republic, freedom for all
they use this as an example to the majority to scare them into submission
i speak the truth
and i will do my best to help free a country that is more enslaved then ever due to misleading wordings, lawyers, judges are not on your side.
they don't care about me or you... they don't whatever benefits their party the most.
we the people are treated like cows
are not respected are looked down and are not well treated
if you don't stand up for your rights you ain't got any
that's all i'm saying
hope you educate yourself and use that to defend our constitution aka bill of rights
for america to be free, you must be truly educated
i speak the truth because i am very well educated.
| |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
·Comcast
| Re: how the judge should fine if guilty is the verdict said by jadebangle :i speak the truth because i am very well educated. Just not in English, grammar or literature I assume. | |
| 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Defining authorized... Another part of this in my view is defining what is "authorized." I've made the case on this distribution point since the suits have been filed. It's never really about downloading, HOWEVER, if they file suit for the distribution while SAYING downloading is bad, they try to obtain the chilling effect they're looking for.
The xxAA's like to make the case that all of this is "unauthorized copying" and thus illegal. So, we must accept that when you buy a digital copy of a song from iTunes or Wal*Mart or some other music store, there is an implied authorization for the download.
They'd still state any downloads are "unauthorized" and try to file suit on that basis. However, there have always been provisions in the copyright law whereby an action taken is legal, even if it isn't explicitly "authorized" by the copyright holder.
I am happy the courts have started to see the light here and force them to come up with proof. As the one filing suit the burden is on them, and to insist that isn't necessary is so far gone it isn't even funny....yet I have to laugh.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|
tadbitofinfo
@nj.us
| MPAA, RIAA, and the issue... The reason why "downloading" is not illegal and can not be controlled is because:
I could easier access someone else's PC and PUSH a file (mp3/movie) to them...those using their "DOWNLOADING" packets.
Lets say someone runs a basic ftp server. Someone else gains the login info and starts uploading info. The owner of the ftp server is technically "downloading" that info. There are up |
|
|
|
If You Block P2P Uploads, Are You Still Guilty?
The whole story is "Alleged" to have happened