torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: terryc on 13 Apr 2010 07:52 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:30:54 +1000, 454 wrote: > And even that will not happen when they can not establish that he would > have paid for it if he had not downloaded it. Irrelevant. >
From: Sylvia Else on 13 Apr 2010 08:05 On 13/04/2010 9:51 PM, terryc wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:50 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 8/04/2010 10:16 AM, Epsilon wrote: >>> Craig wrote: >>>> If your IP address is visible to the world and it can be shown that >>>> your are seeding the file you are downloading, then why do people use >>>> such technologies? Why aren't they afraid of being sued by the >>>> copyright holders? >>> >>> Several reasons. >>> >>> 1. The downloader is basically stupid. >>> >>> 2. The downloader doesn't have a cracker, so isn't worth suing. >>> >>> >> And it's questionable how much could be recovered anyway. The loss to a >> copyright holder of a single breach of copyright on a typical movie is >> probably in the region of $15 at the very most. If they start legal >> proceedings, > > And they won't. What the "great brains trust" that exists here has failed > to comprehend is the power of logging. Log everything that they can, log > over a few years and hey bingo, 10 titles, 100 titles, 1,000 titles and > you have a figure worth pursuing them over. Until they've got to the point of starting litigation in court, they're not in a position to force the ISP to reveal the identity of the downloader. With few people being on fixed IP addresses, a log that indicates that a particular IP address has downloaded multiple movies is not much of a basis for starting litigation, because it could prove that there are multiple infringers, each of whom could only be sued for $15. Conversely, the person who's downloaded 100 movies may have done so from 100 different IP addresses, and not been picked up as a likely target for litigation. Sylvia.
From: Rod Speed on 13 Apr 2010 12:33 terryc wrote > 454 wrote >> And even that will not happen when they can not establish >> that he would have paid for it if he had not downloaded it. > Irrelevant. Like hell it is. If the individual downloader would not have done that, no damage can be established, fool.
From: annily on 13 Apr 2010 22:02 Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/04/2010 9:51 PM, terryc wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:50 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>> On 8/04/2010 10:16 AM, Epsilon wrote: >>>> Craig wrote: >>>>> If your IP address is visible to the world and it can be shown that >>>>> your are seeding the file you are downloading, then why do people use >>>>> such technologies? Why aren't they afraid of being sued by the >>>>> copyright holders? >>>> >>>> Several reasons. >>>> >>>> 1. The downloader is basically stupid. >>>> >>>> 2. The downloader doesn't have a cracker, so isn't worth suing. >>>> >>>> >>> And it's questionable how much could be recovered anyway. The loss to a >>> copyright holder of a single breach of copyright on a typical movie is >>> probably in the region of $15 at the very most. If they start legal >>> proceedings, >> >> And they won't. What the "great brains trust" that exists here has failed >> to comprehend is the power of logging. Log everything that they can, log >> over a few years and hey bingo, 10 titles, 100 titles, 1,000 titles and >> you have a figure worth pursuing them over. > > Until they've got to the point of starting litigation in court, they're > not in a position to force the ISP to reveal the identity of the > downloader. With few people being on fixed IP addresses, a log that > indicates that a particular IP address has downloaded multiple movies is > not much of a basis for starting litigation, because it could prove that > there are multiple infringers, each of whom could only be sued for $15. > > Conversely, the person who's downloaded 100 movies may have done so from > 100 different IP addresses, and not been picked up as a likely target > for litigation. > > Sylvia. How do they verify what you have downloaded anyway? Surely they can't just go by a file name, and if the content is encrypted, how do they prove it's their copyright content? -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
From: Sylvia Else on 13 Apr 2010 23:33
On 14/04/2010 12:02 PM, annily wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/04/2010 9:51 PM, terryc wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:46:50 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/04/2010 10:16 AM, Epsilon wrote: >>>>> Craig wrote: >>>>>> If your IP address is visible to the world and it can be shown that >>>>>> your are seeding the file you are downloading, then why do people use >>>>>> such technologies? Why aren't they afraid of being sued by the >>>>>> copyright holders? >>>>> >>>>> Several reasons. >>>>> >>>>> 1. The downloader is basically stupid. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The downloader doesn't have a cracker, so isn't worth suing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And it's questionable how much could be recovered anyway. The loss to a >>>> copyright holder of a single breach of copyright on a typical movie is >>>> probably in the region of $15 at the very most. If they start legal >>>> proceedings, >>> >>> And they won't. What the "great brains trust" that exists here has >>> failed >>> to comprehend is the power of logging. Log everything that they can, log >>> over a few years and hey bingo, 10 titles, 100 titles, 1,000 titles and >>> you have a figure worth pursuing them over. >> >> Until they've got to the point of starting litigation in court, >> they're not in a position to force the ISP to reveal the identity of >> the downloader. With few people being on fixed IP addresses, a log >> that indicates that a particular IP address has downloaded multiple >> movies is not much of a basis for starting litigation, because it >> could prove that there are multiple infringers, each of whom could >> only be sued for $15. >> >> Conversely, the person who's downloaded 100 movies may have done so >> from 100 different IP addresses, and not been picked up as a likely >> target for litigation. >> >> Sylvia. > > How do they verify what you have downloaded anyway? Surely they can't > just go by a file name, and if the content is encrypted, how do they > prove it's their copyright content? > Certainly the filename's no use beyond identifying IP addresses of interest. If I remember rightly, the case against iiNet (which was lost!) was based on receipt of parts of specific content from iiNet customers, with said content being matched against the copyright owner's content. The conclusion is then reached, on balance of probability, that the iiNet customer peer will also upload the other parts of the content, such that a substantial part is uploaded, and therefore copied. The content can't be encrypted in that situation, or if it is, the receiving torrent client has to be able to decrypt it. Sylvia. |