BF2S Forums Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music'

Uzique wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Pirate at your own risk though. You're risk of catching Trojans is very high while using torrents.

please explain to me how the chances of catching a trojan is very high when torrenting? i have used a private torrent tracker for 7-8 years, have over 200Gb of music seeding from that tracker... and every single torrent has been a straight-clean folder full of .mp3/FLAC files, .cue files and .jpeg artworks. where does a trojan get into the mix? i'm not sure you understand how most people 'obtain' their material...

Uzique wrote:

... does it make sense now? piracy is 'copyright infringement': it suits the law, it suits the judges, it suits the lawyers, and it suits the bands/record industry. the only people it doesn't suit are the poor defendants that get picked out at random by these big litigating record authorities and made an example of-- and subsequently buried beneath hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of dollars of debt.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You've totally omitted statute law.

theft is specified in statute law under offences against the property act... and it DOES NOT cover digital piracy.

Maybe not today, it might do next week.

The first peer-to-peer case was A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the 9th Circuit considered whether Napster was liable as a secondary infringer. First, the court considered whether Napster was contributorily liable for copyright infringement. To be found contributorily liable, Napster must have engaged in "personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."[40]  The court found that Napster was contributorily liable for the copyright infringement of its end-users because it "knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights."[41]  The court analyzed whether Napster was vicariously liable for copyright infringement. The standard applied by the court was whether Napster "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities."[42]  The court found that Napster did receive a financial benefit, and had the right and ability to supervise the activity, meaning that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim of vicarious infringement.[43] The court denied all of Napster's defenses, including its claim of fair use.

The next major peer-to-peer case was MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court found that even if Grokster was capable of substantial non-infringing uses, which the Sony court found was enough to relieve one of secondary copyright liability, Grokster was still secondarily liable because it induced its users to infringe.[44][45]

It is important to note the concept of blame in cases such as these. In a pure P2P network there is no host, but in practice most P2P networks are a hybrid (see "Computer science perspective" below). This has led groups such as the RIAA to file suit against individual users, rather than against companies. The reason that Napster was subject to violation of the law and ultimately lost in court was because Napster was not a pure P2P network but instead maintained a central server which maintained an index of the files currently available on the network.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.

Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, criminal copyright infringement required that the infringement was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain." Merely uploading and downloading files on the internet did not fulfill this requirement, meaning that even large-scale online infringement could not be prosecuted criminally

Like I said, statute law can change quickly, its a CRIMINAL offence whether or not there is a profit motive.
The person downloading is the criminal, not the host.

PRS issues are unaffected, profit has never been an issue in that case.

The Net Act does set some minimum levels for prosecution, so presumably "minor" violations should remain unpunished. The first level provides that the copyrighted material must have a retail value of more than $1,000, and is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000. The second level requires distribution of at least 10 copies, during a 180 day period, worth at least $2,500. The punishment is a fine of up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a business) and imprisonment up to five years. The prosecutor has five years by which to bring the case, starting on the first day of the violation (after five years expire one can not be prosecuted for that offense).

Uzique wrote:

statute law relatively changes... not so quickly. it takes time. it's a lengthy process.

perhaps your 'perspective' is a little warped because we are, after all, debating a very hot topic here (legally and politically). statute for digital crime and online piracy has been pushed through at warp-speed lately because of record-industry lobby pressure and increased focus on ISP's and their responsibility. it's an anomaly, basically. normally a statute is drafted up to provide a substantial reform of earlier law-- and isn't done so with any particular rush or 'speed' in mind. in the uk, for example, any given act normally bounces back and forth between the two houses of parliament and various legislative reform groups before finally being published and enacted.

there is a copyright theft act, yes and 'copyright infringement' can be a criminal act. i explained earlier, though, why pretty much every single prosecuting party will pursue the matter through the civil-tort avenue of law. there's just so much more money and such a better opportunity to make a public example out of it. for instance, the criminal law punishment for copyright infringement/online piracy NOW in the UK, under the digital economy act 2010... is to have your internet disconnected. a band doesn't really 'desire' that outcome so much as desiring a hefty financial payout.

by comparison, common law can apply changes retrospectively and creative new, departing precedents in the space of one court-case.

eleven bravo wrote:

oj simpson

Uzique wrote:

it's a bit of a poor syllogism to come to the conclusion that 'our laws of modern society are based on judeo-christian values because: a) our laws are based on societal morals and b) some early judeo-christian instructs still remain in modern iterations'. the judeo-christian stuff is pretty easily traceable and is of obvious origin... as for the other half of modern law, it's very much secular in nature. as dilbert said, there's the popular morality and the utilitarian-based stuff that is just for general 'good' and wellbeing.

RTHKI wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Uzique wrote:

please explain to me how the chances of catching a trojan is very high when torrenting? i have used a private torrent tracker for 7-8 years, have over 200Gb of music seeding from that tracker... and every single torrent has been a straight-clean folder full of .mp3/FLAC files, .cue files and .jpeg artworks. where does a trojan get into the mix? i'm not sure you understand how most people 'obtain' their material...

The last time I used a torrent system, uTorrent, I immediately got something when looking for some game music. I've never used torrent again. I did not mean to lump private communities with public ones. They ban users who upload material with trojans I believe, most of them.

It is still a security risk.

a small one

the only time i got something bad was when i got MS office 07 for my desktop, i knew it had a virus but i d/l anyway cause i need Office for school. well the virus never did anything, i deleted all the files after completing the work, then windows updated itself to office 2007

Slashdot.org wrote:

"A federal judge has ruled that the company holding a movie copyright can subpoena the names of people who are accused of illegally downloading and distributing the film. The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy."

Phrozenbot wrote:

I just use GIMP. It's free!

RTHKI wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

The last time I used a torrent system, uTorrent, I immediately got something when looking for some game music. I've never used torrent again. I did not mean to lump private communities with public ones. They ban users who upload material with trojans I believe, most of them.

It is still a security risk.

a small one

the only time i got something bad was when i got MS office 07 for my desktop, i knew it had a virus but i d/l anyway cause i need Office for school. well the virus never did anything, i deleted all the files after completing the work, then windows updated itself to office 2007

Okay, it can be, depending on what you are attempting to obtain. The more media you acquire the greater the risk.

Uzique wrote:

well i'd say that's extremely fucking stupid... you can download tons of perfectly safe, legal things using torrents. they're just another method of distribution. there's nothing inherently 'infected' or 'risky' about using a torrent-service. world of warcraft patches using a torrent client-- OH NOES!