|
U.S. P2P Lawsuit Shows Signs of a ?Pirate Honeypot?
Quote:
so a person actually uses p2p to say get his favorite tv show (using torrents like a vcr) or his favorite album (using torrents like a mp3 ripper) and get sued because copyright holder fraudlently mislabeled the file to snag false downloads. |
|
Quote:
i download timeshift game of thrones and i get some gay crap i have no desire to ever see. |
Because law enforcement types have never misled those who are breaking laws in order to catch them. How is this different than dressing a female officer up like a hooker and having her walk the streets then busting guys who offer to pay her for sex or how is this different than an undercover cop selling drugs to someone then busting them for it?
If a person has a legitimate reason to be downloading these files they should have nothing to worry about. |
Quote:
what your describing is the exact opposite of what is going on here a copy pretending to sell SEX to somene looking to buy SEX would be the equal to these lawyers pretending to give the VIDEO to people looking for the VIDEO (ie naming the video butfuck brotha but putting a you are guilty of copyright infringement we have your ip pay us or we will sue video in it place) What they are doing is suing people who were looking for another piece of content because they successfully tricked them into violating the copyright. if i download a tv show i paid for i am not breaking the law (because of fair use) it only because of this mislabelled name that i might mistakenly download content i don't have a fair use right to download |
gideongallery, I suggest you stop breaking the law. Then there's no need to worry.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I dont see problem with planting fake files,after all FBI doing same to catch pedophiles.
|
Quote:
|
If I buy or sell tide laundry detergent under the guise that it is cocaine I am still guilty of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance... did you know that?
|
Content uploaders should be prosecuted if the privately-owned content is made available to the public. This is not time-shifting.....this is piracy.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
your payment is having to sit thru advertising. |
Time shifting has to do with storing a program so that an individual can view the program later when it is more convenient.
It has nothing to do with whether the subject matter is in the public domain or not. If the privately-owned content is made available to the public, it is not time shifting. Time Shifting Definition on Wikipedia Privately-owned content that has been placed in a publicly accessible tube site or P2P is not time-shifting, it is piracy. |
Ok I will turn off all my torrent now!
|
Quote:
A. HBO upload gay porn, mislabel the titles, then sue everyone downloading. B. You got spammed. :1orglaugh |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And it does have to do with material already released to the pubic, ie: free air tv is public released - which is what the wiki says. What the wiki doesn't say is anything about privately owned content, because that wouldn't be piracy, it would be stealing. |
Quote:
you might want to read up on the most recent supreme court decision regarding timeshifting in a cloud (a cloud which as it was designed included the public internet too) http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud considering a swarm is just another form of cloud this ruling is a game changer to your outdated oppinion on how fair use works |
I wouldn't bet the ranch on your decisions standing up over time.
As I said earlier, the thieves are trying to redefine our copyright laws..... |
Quote:
Ever owned a VCR/dvd recorder or dvr and recorded anything, or recorded a song to tape, made a backup copy and then lost the org? Sure would suck to not have this technology around... I don't really consider myself a thief, I consider myself lucky that the courts haven't stopped on my rights or allowed me to be sued to death for my own personal copies. |
Quote:
that an example of putting non cp content under the cp TERMS the person getting caught is looking for CP that the point that a huge difference between putting CP under name of TV shows which the FBI would never do (which is what your trying to defend with your analogy) |
Quote:
the supreme court has already upheld it it done it law of the land since august of last year get used to it. |
As you probably know, when a new case that details slightly different circumstances that address a nuanced disagreement in existing laws or differing decisions rendered by two different Appeals Courts, the courts will readdress the issues at play and may render a very different verdict.
This may well occur when intellectual property laws clash with the unexpected results of prior decisions. I'm sure lawyers are looking for the right case to bring forward.:thumbsup |
Quote:
A guy goes to download the most recent episode of a TV show. Say for this example he is trying to download the most recent episode of Law and Order. What he gets is a file labeled Law and Order, but is actually an episode of Game of Thrones. Correct? Again I'm just using the titles here as an example. If that is what you are claiming can you post to any case where this has successfully worked? It seems to me if you thought you were getting Law and Order and you have the right to download Law and Order then an obviously mislabeled filed is not your fault and would never hold up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the point is this person is now going to have to spend money on a lawyer/time and effort to defend themselves in court. personally i hope these MF get bitch slapped into next week for this shit. |
Quote:
Quote:
that the definition which was recognized by the courts any "shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisions and released with minimal mangement effor or service provider interaction' quualifies period. |
Quote:
It sucks that this might be happening to some people out there, but that is how it goes. Downloading is a controversial subject and if you are going to wade into the water where thieves and criminals operate even if you yourself have done nothing wrong you can't be too surprised if you ended up having a little of the shit fly onto you. Still, I do agree with you that the people who are knowingly trying to disguise their content and getting the wrong people to download it so they can sue them should be slapped by the court. |
Quote:
With a swarm (which I assume you mean torrent) you are actually distributing the work out to dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people. Sure you are only giving each person a small piece, but to me that is still distribution. If you are downloading, but not uploading to the swarm then essentially you are taking a small bit from many users. To use the articles example you would be taking a small piece from the 1000's of saved copies, not just from the one you created. There is a difference. |
Quote:
People are trying to download Laundry, but end up getting a zip file full of Cocaine and are busted for possession. I understand copyright holders are putting copywritten Music or Video files and labeling them "Free - Barney Goes Bananas" and then suing the downloader when for downloading a copywritten file. |
I don't think studios are going after people for downloading products labelled as "Free." It wouldn't make any sense as you have provided the accused with their own defense.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
the internet is used for parts of the distribution of the content in the case example and if you know anything about tcp/ip packets you know that by the very nature of the protocol it broken into pieces to handle the transmission 2. if you want to argue that giving away a piece of something is just the same as giving away the entire copy for the purpose of distribution you going to wipe out the internet (see tcp/ip above) 3. if you apply the rule to digital material your going to have to apply it to physical content which means doing things like shredding documents and putting them in the garbage is going to copyright infringement if someone dumpster dives and puts those pieces together. 4. which means this type of setup case is going to happen a lot, better get ready to spend 20 k on a military grade shredder that turns the document into a fine powder or you going to lose your house the next time you shred a document. |
Use a fake name for your internet, problem solved:2 cents:
|
Quote:
Your example of physical content holds no water. If I shred something and someone takes it out of my garbage and puts it back together it is out of my hands and I had nothing to do with it. If I download a file and then actively seed it so other's can download it then I am taking an active role in the possible infringement. Also, if I shred something and throw it away likely I no longer have it so it would be no different than giving it to someone as a gift. Where the infringement comes in is if I copy it then give the original away and keep a copy for myself. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123