torrent and other P2P
in [Computers]
|
Prev: How do I turn my mouse off?
Next: Centrelink error...
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 03:01 Craig wrot > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >> Craig wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> Craig wrote >>>>> Andy <nospam@> wrote >>>>>> Craig wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, but at least you are not broadcasting to the world every time you download. >>>>>> I take it that you *don't* realise that your IP address is logged on every web site/server you visit, right? >>>>> Yes, but that is different to P2P where while you are downloading >>>>> a file the whole P2P swarm will know your IP address. >>>> Fat lot of use that is to anyone if you do the obvious thing and ensure its not your IP. >>> How can you receive data from the swarm if the swarm doesn't know your real IP address? >> All it needs to know is the IP of the redirector. > Is the redirector a third party? Yes. > If so, they may be liable. And they choose to do that in countrys that just make an obscene gesture in the general direction of any copyright holder that attempts to work out the personal details of the downloader. Its illegal to disclose that data to anyone in some of them. And the data doesnt have to be retained either, so the copyright holder can demand whatever they like, if its not available, even their court system cant do anything about that. There is no way that the US legal system can require anyone outside the US to keep records of who used the redirector and when.
From: Craig on 9 Apr 2010 03:06 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:828182FpuuU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> >>> There won't be any Ms Thomas' in Australia. Least of all because we >>> don't have that statutory damages stuff that exists in the US. And >>> also because, although we have plenty of dills here, she was a >>> special kind of dill who, in the US legal jargon, "willfully" >>> breached copyright. That is, she deliberately put herself in the >>> position of a retailer of pirated copyrighted material. >>> >>> No-one has suggested that such people would not be subject to normal >>> legal action by the copyright holder. They get their just desserts. >>> >>> But, the fact remains that the individual downloader of material in >>> breach of copyright is not in that situation in Australia, and is at >>> no great risk of being pursued by the copyright holder in the >>> courts. If they take the step of making that material in breach of >>> copyright available to others, the situation is different, of course. >> >> But the P2P downloader is making the content available to others. > > Not necessarily. > If they don't their download speeds will be reduced. >> When they download a file they are making available to others the parts >> of the file they have already downloaded. > > Not necessarily. > > And the reason that wont happen in Australia is because there are no > statutory damages like that here anyway. That's not a reason in of itself that the litigation wouldn't be successful.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 03:09 Craig wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> It is rather important to get the facts right. These examples are >>>> not of individual users who merely downloaded material in breach of copyright. They also made the material >>>> available to many others. >>>> They are the equivalent of retailers of pirated software. >>> Yes, but by downloading via P2P you are uploading at the same time. >> Not necessarily. You can disable that. > Even if you could, the fact you are downloading is something known to the swarm. Not if you use a redirector it isnt. All the swarm ever knows is that someone else is using that redirector.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 03:10 Craig wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> It is rather important to get the facts right. These examples are >>>> not of individual users who merely downloaded material in breach of >>>> copyright. They also made the material available to many others. >>>> They are the equivalent of retailers of pirated software. >>> Yes, but by downloading via P2P you are uploading at the same time. >> Not necessarily. You can disable that. > Most P2P programs will slow your dowload speeds if you disable uploading. So it takes a little longer ? Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
From: Rod Speed on 9 Apr 2010 03:15
Craig wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> There won't be any Ms Thomas' in Australia. Least of all because >>>> we don't have that statutory damages stuff that exists in the US. And also because, although we have plenty of >>>> dills here, she was a >>>> special kind of dill who, in the US legal jargon, "willfully" >>>> breached copyright. That is, she deliberately put herself in the >>>> position of a retailer of pirated copyrighted material. >>>> No-one has suggested that such people would not be subject to >>>> normal legal action by the copyright holder. They get their just desserts. >>>> But, the fact remains that the individual downloader of material in >>>> breach of copyright is not in that situation in Australia, and is >>>> at no great risk of being pursued by the copyright holder in the >>>> courts. If they take the step of making that material in breach of >>>> copyright available to others, the situation is different, of course. >>> But the P2P downloader is making the content available to others. >> Not necessarily. > If they don't their download speeds will be reduced. Not necessarily. And even if it is, so what if it takes a bit longer ? >>> When they download a file they are making available to others the >>> parts of the file they have already downloaded. >> Not necessarily. >> And the reason that wont happen in Australia is because there are no >> statutory damages like that here anyway. > That's not a reason in of itself that the litigation wouldn't be successful. Corse it is. |