Ganging up on Pirates...

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You get it more than most people do. Whenever you read news articles (and most posts) about this, they always use the word "download". However, the actual court cases are about uploading. The uploader is the one who is committing direct copyright infringement. I'm not aware of anyone ever being sued specifically for downloading.

Exactly, since (depending of the d/lers location) (s)he might be allowed to posses the file downloaded (e.g. by posession of the original media)
whereas an u/loader releasing files up "blindly" can hardly control if only ppl who are allowed to download do so.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Harmon

First, though, my point about shoplifting is that it cannot be stopped, and that the critical problem is to minimize it, taking into account marginal costs.

Shoplifting CAN be stopped, but the price is too high for most. In additional personnel, added inconvenience to customers, and reduced sales due to those issues.

But go into an inner city corner store and see how they stop shoplifting. Everything is behind the counter, and you have to ask for it. You don't get it, until you pay. Try that with a large store though.

[Pinecone]

I have no problem with stopping piracy. But OTOH, the customer needs to be treated reasonably also.

There is no reason an eBook should not be any different than a pBook, if there is a way to limit the use to one person at a time. I buy a product, it is mine to lend, sell or give away. As long as I do not make additional copies to do so with.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Exactly, since (depending of the d/lers location) (s)he might be allowed to posses the file downloaded (e.g. by posession of the original media)

If you really think about it, the whole concept that downloading can be illegal doesn't make any sense.

whereas an u/loader releasing files up "blindly" can hardly control if only ppl who are allowed to download do so.

Actually, it makes no difference if ppl are "allowed to download" (whatever that actually means). What matters is whether the uploader is an authorized distributor. So, theoretically, even if an uploader released the file to someone who had bought the content, if that uploader is not authorized by the copyright holder to distribute, then it's infringement.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Actually, it makes no difference if ppl are "allowed to download" (whatever that actually means). What matters is whether the uploader is an authorized distributor. So, theoretically, even if an uploader released the file to someone who had bought the content, if that uploader is not authorized by the copyright holder to distribute, then it's infringement.

I'm not sure... is someone a "distributor" if they don't actually distribute? Making it available for download should only be relevant if people who weren't authorized to have a copy got one.

I'm trying to think of an example of someone busted for distribution of copies to authorized recipients. It's hard to come up with anything, because most distributors who aren't resellers covered by first-sale rights are at the upper-corporate level. All I can think of is something like a magazine distributor who sends out copies a week early. Or the post office (except they're covered by safe harbor provisions--but I don't know how that works if the content was labeled "Do not deliver before [date].")

Have there been any lawsuits or criminal prosecutions (I'm not sure that falls under the criminal side of infringement) for illegal distribution, without a making-copies aspect attached?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You get it more than most people do. Whenever you read news articles (and most posts) about this, they always use the word "download". However, the actual court cases are about uploading. The uploader is the one who is committing direct copyright infringement. I'm not aware of anyone ever being sued specifically for downloading.

Now that there is no need for any evidence they will be able to go after downloaders much more aggressively. Just put something up for download, collect all the IP's that try to download it, and away you go. It wouldn't even need to be the actual product you put up for download, it could just be an mp3, video or ebook that said "Ha ha ha, we got you! Say goodbye to your internet."

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Now that there is no need for any evidence they will be able to go after downloaders much more aggressively. Just put something up for download, collect all the IP's that try to download it, and away you go. It wouldn't even need to be the actual product you put up for download, it could just be an mp3, video or ebook that said "Ha ha ha, we got you! Say goodbye to your internet."

They've actually done that already. Before most people switched to torrents, they would purposely put out bogus files, or make the file you got useless. I remember some stuff my brother downloaded, it was the actual song but every 15 seconds, it would have a loud squealing noise. That way they nabbed you, and you didn't get anything of worth. They stopped doing that though, because it became more difficult with torrents to have it be worthwhile

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Now that there is no need for any evidence they will be able to go after downloaders much more aggressively. Just put something up for download, collect all the IP's that try to download it, and away you go. It wouldn't even need to be the actual product you put up for download, it could just be an mp3, video or ebook that said "Ha ha ha, we got you! Say goodbye to your internet."

There's a problem with that.

If the copyright owners make the file available themselves, it's not an unauthorized copy. If the IP holders upload the file with the intention of it being downloaded, the downloaders haven't broken any laws. If those people re-upload (which is generally the case with torrents), they're guilty of distribution--but they haven't made any unauthorized copies, and the new recipients may not have made any unauthorized copies (because the IP holders made copies available), and it's *really* hard to argue "damages" from copies you distributed yourself.

Copyright law was never designed to go after individuals who made a single copy for themselves or a friend. If someone bought pulp zines and copied their favorite stories out longhand and mailed them to a friend, copyright law *didn't care.* Technically, that's illegal, just like torrenting: you employ technology to make a copy and keep the original. Copyright law is oblivious to notions like "quality of the copy."

And if a file doesn't contain the expected contents but just a "gotcha" notice... there's no gotcha; there's nothing remotely illegal about having a file named "HARRY POTTER 1ST MOVIE.AVI" that contains nothing but a 10-second animation denouncing piracy.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And if a file doesn't contain the expected contents but just a "gotcha" notice... there's no gotcha; there's nothing remotely illegal about having a file named "HARRY POTTER 1ST MOVIE.AVI" that contains nothing but a 10-second animation denouncing piracy.

You're fogetting the purpose of the new laws. They don't need to prove anything, just provide the ISP with a list of IP addresses so that the ISP can hand out punishments. Whether anything useful is downloaded or not doesn't matter, since the owner of the IP address is presumed guilty as soon as they are accused.

If the victim wants to pay money to attempt to prove their innocence they can just say they must have made a mistake and pocket their share of the money.

It's win-win. They either get some money or another filthy pirate gets kicked off the internet. And as we all know, once all the pirates are off the internet the entertainment industry will be making an extra 50trillion per year in profit.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You're fogetting the purpose of the new laws. They don't need to prove anything, just provide the ISP with a list of IP addresses so that the ISP can hand out punishments. Whether anything useful is downloaded or not doesn't matter, since the owner of the IP address is presumed guilty as soon as they are accused.

If the victim wants to pay money to attempt to prove their innocence they can just say they must have made a mistake and pocket their share of the money.

It's win-win. They either get some money or another filthy pirate gets kicked off the internet. And as we all know, once all the pirates are off the internet the entertainment industry will be making an extra 50trillion per year in profit.

Not to mention, that with the RIAA, their gameplan the entire time hasn't been to win the cases, but to force people to submit. They force you to settle out of court, and agree to pay wads of cash. They don't need to prove anything, merely intimidate you.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's win-win. They either get some money or another filthy pirate gets kicked off the internet. And as we all know, once all the pirates are off the internet the entertainment industry will be making an extra 50trillion per year in profit.

They would get some money. They would kick off a few college students or wannabe activists lacking in brains. And they would, very likely, severely restrict the current torrent/p2p networking systems, and some of the filesharing sites.

And piracy would go *somewhere else*, because the purpose of computers is *making copies of data.* And there really is no way to make that more difficult or expensive, and anything that tries to inhibit "piracy" is going to inhibit the huge (and very profitable) social networking aspects of the internet.

I am hoping that eventually, someone at the government end of things gets a clue and realized that IP holders really need to start proving *damages* before they can demand massive crackdowns for infringements that may not exist. And claiming, "but but but ten thousand copies made!" is not the same as proving those were ten thousand lost sales. (I mean. Really. How much more money do they think Avatar could've made in the theatres? Has Harry Potter been scraping along with pennies because the ebooks are widely available?)

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You're fogetting the purpose of the new laws. They don't need to prove anything, just provide the ISP with a list of IP addresses so that the ISP can hand out punishments. Whether anything useful is downloaded or not doesn't matter, since the owner of the IP address is presumed guilty as soon as they are accused.

If the victim wants to pay money to attempt to prove their innocence they can just say they must have made a mistake and pocket their share of the money.

It's win-win. They either get some money or another filthy pirate gets kicked off the internet. And as we all know, once all the pirates are off the internet the entertainment industry will be making an extra 50trillion per year in profit.

They cheerfully forget that for every person they kick off the internet, they just kicked off a customer for legitimate online sales...

And you can't kick people off of the sneakernet....(Remember, today you can buy a SDXC @128GBytes for around US$200-230. That'll hold an awful lot of pirate stuff. in a year or two, it'll be US$50...)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

They cheerfully forget that for every person they kick off the internet, they just kicked off a customer for legitimate online sales...

And you can't kick people off of the sneakernet....(Remember, today you can buy a SDXC @128GBytes for around US$200-230. That'll hold an awful lot of pirate stuff. in a year or two, it'll be US$50...)

ISPs dont get a cut of online sales, so they dont care.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

ISPs dont get a cut of online sales, so they dont care.

But the Corps owning the copyrights, who are doing the leaning on the ISPs, do get a cut....

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

They cheerfully forget that for every person they kick off the internet, they just kicked off a customer for legitimate online sales...

Not to mention the rest of that person's immediate family, and all the people who would have bought their product as a direct result of their recommendation, review or blog mention.