Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rafal99]

What?  How do you get that from it?  If no one can sue you for something, then that something, under the law, isn't wrong.

You still broke the damn law.

No.  TPB is its own thing.  They and they're members are responsible for its content, not me.  I don't even have an account for it.  Like I said, if it was expected of citizens to do their own investigations of every torrent they download, it would just be plain stupid.  And it's so massive, you can hardly expect them to even be able to scour its contents for illegal pirating.  Also like I said, I hardly ever download things on TPB.  I highly doubt that any of the few things I've downloaded on it were there illegally.

Yeah exactly. I was just going to post about this exact similarity.

Nevertheless, there's a difference between intentionally committing piracy and incidentally committing it. If you come across a copy of a game or movie on the Pirate Bay and go to the effort of downloading it, you're intentionally committing piracy.

Well the game maybe is abandonware and free to download etc so it is not always piracy. Not everyone know every title. Also you can't be sure about the contents of the torrent, if they are legal or not, unless you actually download them.

[Cthulhu]

Abandonware is usually still piracy, it's just piracy that not even the copyright holders care about.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[psyn]

That's the point genius. You pled not guilty to piracy and yet you admit yourself that you do.

He may however be held less liable. Ignorance is seldom excused, but is commiserable. Contrast this to Phmcw, who breaks the law when in discordance; a veritable blemish on our society.

What?  How do you get that from it?  If no one can sue you for something, then that something, under the law, isn't wrong.

[Donning Captain Obvious]: Laws are not unequivocal rules. Interpretation is for judges and judiciaries. Morality is disparate.

... There is nothing indicating that it was posted illegally, and since I would not know it was illegally placed, can't be prosecuted for it - not in any court anyone would take seriously. ...

In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. ...

If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504(c)(2).

It is undisputed that BMG Music gave copyright notice as required—"on the surface of the phonorecord, or on the phonorecord label or container" (§402(c)). It is likewise undisputed that Gonzalez had "access" to records and compact disks bearing the proper notice. She downloaded data rather than discs, and the data lacked copyright notices, but the statutory question is whether "access" to legitimate works was available rather than whether infringers earlier in the chain attached copyright notices to the pirated works. Gonzalez readily could have learned, had she inquired, that the music was under copyright.

(I see this as faulty logic, although the defendant was clearly culpable. Nevertheless, it did set a precedent.)

If you watch a clip on Youtube, it's probable that it falls within Fair Use, the clip has entered public domain, ...

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Gonzalez was not engaged in a nonprofit use; she downloaded (and kept) whole copyrighted songs (for which, as with poetry, copying of more than a couplet or two is deemed excessive); and she did this despite the fact that these works often are sold per song as well as per album
...
It is no surprise, therefore, that the only appellate decision on point has held that downloading copyrighted songs cannot be defended as fair use, whether or not the recipient plans to buy songs she likes well enough to spring for. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014-19 (9th Cir. 2001). See also UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that downloads are not fair use even if the downloader already owns one purchased copy).

Well the game maybe is abandonware and free to download etc so it is not always piracy. Not everyone know every title.

It usually does not follow that copyrights are placed under public domain when a company disappears. In the case of bankruptcy, they are often sold to pay off debt (as required).

[ChairmanPoo]

For the record, there are places where filesharing is legal.

It's motivated by my dream of working for a chemical company. No research at chemical company => no future for me. Sure I could do academic research, but frankly, most of that isn't realy exiting and all the exiting stuff is being done in collaboration with chemical companies. I highly doubt they'd continue doing that if there was no chance of making a decent profit out of the research.

Yeah, I don't think that copyright should be par to patent (Much less superior, as it is at the moment)

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Phmcw]

@virex, yes sure nothing else then patent new under the sun.
And of course, it's in the best interest of the citizen that every thing from an exact color to software algorythm are patentable.
If you wish to continue your rant about the right to patent news technology go on.
But realy, you're not speaking about the same thing as me.
Let me put it straight. I have no problem with short term patent on new technology.
I have problem with patent on : mathematical algorythm, management method, color, gene, thing that are obviously patented to kill concurence such as the form of the battery charger of a gsm.

And the new and broad definition of patent is a mere detail compairing what they try to shove down our troath.

[Virex]

@virex, yes sure nothing else then patent new under the sun.
And of course, it's in the best interest of the citizen that every thing from an exact color to software algorythm are patentable.
If you wish to continue your rant about the right to patent news technology go on.
But realy, you're not speaking about the same thing as me.

Actualy, I misinterpeted your stance. I originaly thought you were arguing for removing all forms of intelectual property rights.

Let me put it straight. I have no problem with short term patent on new technology.
I have problem with patent on : mathematical algorythm, management method, color, gene, thing that are obviously patented to kill concurence such as the form of the battery charger of a gsm.

I do agree there are some.... quirks in the patent laws, (especialy in the US), but patents at least used to be, and in many cases still are, narrower then you give them credit for. For example, patenting a pure mathamatical aglorythm has been deemed impossible (link) and even after an extended search I was only able to verify that some colours have been coined as a trademark, but no colours have been patented directly (except for specific combinations of substances that form paint with a specific colour). The only thing on your list that generaly doesn't get rejected is a patent that's obviously there to kill concurence (and DNA, but as I said, that's just a strange quirk in the US patent laws).

[psyn]

For the record, there are places where filesharing is legal.

You mean... the U.S. isn't a worldwide government? :shock:

Humor aside, in 20 years time the Internet is likely going to be especially foreign. American/EU interests (Gov./corp./authors alike) lie firmly in securing a trusted digital platform. It is folly to presume it will be as now, when DRM has advanced so in such short time (PS3 still unbroken after 3 1/2 years), while looming on several major technological breakthroughs (10-20 years), and an ever spreading engineer consensus that the Internet needs to be redesigned from the bottom up.

Obviously, if you're listening to music on youtube it qualifies just as if you went out of your way to download the music as an mp3. My point is that it's a much safer assumption that a video clip on Youtube falls under Fair Use than a game on TPB, so the analogy that was being made is ridiculous. If we're talking about music, then the scenarios to which I'm referring are if somebody used a 30-second clip of a 5-minute song used as background music in a video.

My mistake. I usually liken the word "clip" to all forms of content, short and complete, not segments only. I understood cowofdoom78963 to specifically imply full-length songs, however. Music videos probably make up half of Youtube altogether.

As for "clips" of copyrighted work -- section 107 does state that length is taken into consideration. But, I would not take that at literal value. Doubtless that little clause is there to protect reviews/caricature and related derivations, not for casual consumer benefit -- this is probably where the idea of fair use allowing distribution of "transformed" property came from. Only the uploader would be at risk here, as there is no way for the listener to capably know if a video is mixed with copyrighted sound tracks. Anyway, no doubt this is covered in more detail elsewhere.

BTW, I went back and read the case opinion cited by Judge Easterbrook in BMG v. Gonzalez. It seems Judge Rakoff's (UMG v. MP3.com) main quibble with mp3.com centered on redistribution and the website's commercial nature; specifically, fair use not covering un-"transformed" redistribution of the original. He fails to address consumer fair use rights for purchased disc (CD/etc.) owners. It would eventually fall under licensing/EULA/DMCA law though (DMCA being damning). I guess that's what I get for quoting an summary opinion summarizing another summary opinion.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Well, they did get around the "you can't patent algorithms" thing by bribing the judges ruling on whether or not the patent office could deny patents on algorithms saying "but if you, like, run this algorithm on a computer and shit, it's totally a machine and shit, man, oh and here's some money cause you're such a bro, man". So now you have patents on shit like "wrapping an image in a link" (not making that up, but my internet is too shitty to look up the old article on it in a reasonable amount of time; granted lawsuits based on it were enforced in Singapore, while it was basically laughed out of the court in the US, if I'm remembering correctly...).

[sonerohi]

Why are you guys actually even debating this though? The people who don't like piracy won't suddenly stop buying things because they can pirate them. The pirates aren't going to start suddenly buying things and denouncing torrents and all. This whole thread will just become a contest of who can yell "No, I'm right" the loudest.

[cowofdoom78963]

Why are you guys actually even debating this though? The people who don't like piracy won't suddenly stop buying things because they can pirate them. The pirates aren't going to start suddenly buying things and denouncing torrents and all. This whole thread will just become a contest of who can yell "No, I'm right" the loudest.

Welcome to every argument that has ever happened.

[Cthulhu]

Why are you guys actually even debating this though? The people who don't like piracy won't suddenly stop buying things because they can pirate them. The pirates aren't going to start suddenly buying things and denouncing torrents and all. This whole thread will just become a contest of who can yell "No, I'm right" the loudest.

Welcome to every internet argument that has ever happened.

Fixed

[psyn]

Why are you guys actually even debating this though? The people who don't like piracy won't suddenly stop buying things because they can pirate them. The pirates aren't going to start suddenly buying things and denouncing torrents and all. This whole thread will just become a contest of who can yell "No, I'm right" the loudest.

I don't know what thread you are reading. It certainly wasn't pages 7-9 of this thread (where I started reading). "Pirates" weren't mentioned by anyone; piracy was. DRM, factoids, law, copyrights, definitions, patents -- not ethicalities or people.

[Jimmy]

Question: Should torrent sites be accountable for the information posted by their users? A well known bittorrent site recently removed the majority of its content after a court order was passed down against it. Do you feel that the owners of a website are responsible for the method in which others use it? Especially considering that registration will often involve agreeing not to post copyright material?