Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
from a technological standpoint unless your computer had been hacked and rogue programs installed (which is illegal to do in itself) copyright cops don't know what you're downloading - unless they are the ones supplying the file. so if we have some detective who is authorized by the copyright holder offering files for download the immediate defense that comes to mind is that you have their permission to receive them, i mean after all, they're giving them to you without duress. in the states at least the "crime" that leads to a lawsuit is the one of "distribution," not reception, so they have not been keen to fall into their own pit. they do not know what you download if you download from someone else for the simple reason your computer isn't connected to theirs and when it's not they can't see your ip address, and it's your (cyber) ip address that is used to reveal your (physical) identity.
what they do then is prowl the networks for users who offer files, and then transfer some of those files to their hardrives while making careful note of that ip. if the files are genuine they proceed from there. so in the strictest sense this is not about the number of downloads you may have, or are in the process of getting. it's about the number of copyrighted files you offer for upload. obviously if you share every single applicable file on your computer the difference is negligible, but if you have ten thousand files and only share ten the difference is significant.
if one is trying to limit one's exposure to potential suits, which in two years have affected less than one in 10,000 users, one's best strategy is to be a "leecher" and not upload at all unfortunately, and indeed this is what's encountered increasingly on the larger and more open public networks. plenty of grabbers grabbing from fewer and fewer givers. leechers have always been the dark side of file sharing going back years, before there was even talk of lawsuits and criminal actions. there seems to be a neurotic and twisted type who for reasons known only to him or her takes while never giving, ever, even if the "giving" is a near-zero cost expenditure. i mean we are after all discussing electronic copies. some of the biggest downloaders, real content hogs, are also some of the worst leechers. it's one of the things i wish psychologists would hurry up and study so i could download their pdfs (yuk yuk). of course now when sharing is less "zero-cost" one could expect to find more people leeching, and one does, but it has been a slight increase and not a linear progression. while normal people understand give and take hard core leechers don't get it, nor seem to behave the way they do because of resource husbandry, indeed they’re hardly saving anything at all, it's more of an internal greed-dialog unaffected by external developments. luckily for the community the majority of participants are normal, and normal file-sharers don't all start leeching in response suits while continuing to download with abandon. they take an all inclusive approach and simply limit all file-sharing activities, try other defenses like ip blockers, eliminate some shares or as we see increasingly, move to networks less affected by legal actions, or employ some combination of these strategies.
so if i had a nutty gabby daughter who chatted and swapped like a drunken sailor on any and every network - i’d let her mother deal with it! however if she inherited her incautious ways from said mom i’d have to insist she cut down on the sharing. it’s the cheapest and most effective form of protection. not so hot for the larger file-sharing community – and she’d hear from them – but with the family’s assets foremost in mind, perhaps the best overall solution. a few uploads are better than none. once someone’s been sued you will probably never see any files from them again.
- js.
|
The crime i've commited is "uploading" (unwittingly), they took screen shots of the IP address whilst themselves downloading and took out an injunction against my telephone company to supply my contact detail.
The BPI are authorised to protect artists interests and therefore are guilty of no crime themselves.
The shared directory contained 3000 odd files. Interestingly not all of these were copyright and the other point is that the BPI cannot prove the copyright of these files AS THEY NEVER DOWNLOADED THEM TO EXAMINE and therefore do not know the substance behind the filename, they simply assume they are able to fire a nuke in my direction. To be pedantic, some of the music files are from American Record Labels and outwith the jurisdiction of the BPI.
Clearly, if the BPI approach you, dont immediatly assume that what they say goes, each act has tobe proven, within their jurisdiction and "punishable".
I think I might be an IP Lawyer after all!