Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
"fair use" is the biggest lie out there. "fair use" is a pretty darn narrow concept, and certainly doesn't give anyone the permission to widely distribute copyrighted material without a license - and it doesn't grant the people who receive that material any exemption or safe harbor. Sorry, it is a horseshit excuse.
Fair use would be making a backup copy for yourself. Fair use would be making copies onto a backup tape. Fair use would be recording on your VCR off of cable. Fair use would be buying a CD and then copying it to your MP3 player.
Fair use doesn't give anyone a license to widely distribute copyrighted material.
Fair use doesn't give anyone the right to edit, modify, change, or otherwise a product and then suddenly feel that they are safe. Taking a PPV movie, recording it, and then giving it away online to 1000 people isn't fair use. That is theft.
Each of the people receiving it are receiving stolen property.
The P2P networks help to transmit or distribute stolen property.
The trackers keep track of where to find the stolen property.
The PB and similar torrent sites show you where to find the trackers.
Everyone and their dog knows that the content is stolen. It's a "no shit" situation. The arrogance of places like TPB is knowing that all the content they are listing is stolen and not giving a shit.
Gideon, have you ever produced anything in your life besides shit and hot air?
|
I suggest you re read the bit torrent protocol link i gave you earlier because you don't understand the protocol
NAPSTER was a file announcing protocol ( i have this song who wants it)
under that situation if you did not have the right to share it you would be lying by using the service and therefore knowingly violating the copyright. Since only knowingly violating the copyright is a crime (which you know and have aknowledge in your accidental violation examples)
BIT TORRENT is a file (technically pieces of a file) requesting protocol as a result sharing that you have a right to own is not a KNOWING violation of copyright. if one of the other seeders in the swarm has lied about having a right to the file then my sharing the pieces with him is only an accidental violation (like your accidental violation when you list a gallery with stolen content).
If i share with a person who does have a right to the file the transaction is also legal because he has a right to download a copy from me.
The downloading half of the transaction is where the infringement happens
If i have a fair use right (all of the back up right you just claimed) i am legally allowed to request pieces from the swarm just like i can request the file from an online backup.
If i lied and did not have a right to the file then i am guilty of knowingly violation the copyright.
this is the big difference napster was illegal because the knowing violation happened on the sharing side (you lied about having a right to share) and the tracker in that case facilated that fraudlent claim.
Bit Torrent trackers initiate the session between the seeders (whos actions are always legal UNTIL you prove-- not guess that they know the peers have no right) and the leechers. The leechers request the pieces directly from the seeder after that point (the tracker is out of the loop for that transaction).
the trackers are basically saying here is a person who has a right to the file (which the original seeder has to have since how else would he get the file) ask him for a piece if you have a right to the file.
only the lying downloader is guilty of a copyright infringement.