Quote:
Originally Posted by TadW
If I understood the case right, they didn't get convicted on base of file-sharing but because they destroyed the evidence (server logs). No?
|
I think they were convicted for
facilitating illegal activity, and fined according to the max allowed penalty because of their destroying their records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razi
Can't they prove that they are in the business of facilitating access to independent artists and advertisement for whatever (as long as it is legal) and some 'rogue users' (read pirates) make wrong use of their facilities.
|
Judging by the court's decision, obviously not: They clearly felt the primary purpose of TorrentSpy was to facilitate the illegal sharing of copywritten works, hence their decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razi
But then they are not Sony Corp whose video recorder was exempt from such law on similar grounds. Talk about double standards.
|
There is a point there... the VCR was clearly considered by the courts of the day to be primarily a home use device, as opposed to an intentional copyright infringement device. It also did not equal film in quality, and did not easily lend itself to mass-copying in high quality, so it presented less of a threat to studios.
(Maybe that's why VCRs are being slowly but surely phased out of use by the manufacturers, to be replaced by DVDs and technology they can more easily track and control... if they figure out how, that is.)
But that's all old news. Times have changed, and so has the ability to more easily copy and distribute others' works in high-quality formats. The latest laws (and penalties) seem to reflect that reality. And I think the artificially high penalties are a result of the novelty of it all, and a lack of more sensible precedents.