3 ms·

The main difference is that Zara uses piracy to earn money, whereas most other pirates don't. That's the general model of copyright that I support - it's legal

by tomp 10y ago

The main difference is that Zara uses piracy to earn money, whereas most other pirates don't. That's the general model of copyright that I support - it's legal to copy anything for non-commercial use.

eggy 10y ago
Per the arrest of the torrent site runner in today's news, it seems he may have made millions in ad revenue on the torrent site. The copying for non-commercial use is sometimes a moving boundary: For instance, you download a PDF of a technical book that is extremely expensive, or plain not available in your country, but you use it to just study on your own. All the way to you download some video, sound, music, code, or book and incorporate it into your YouTube channel or your site that generates revenue for you. Now it is blurred IMO. If you are parodying something, you may get away with it, but if you are leveraging it to avoid doing the work to generate the content yourself, you are stealing. It is commercial usage in this case, but many disagree it seems, but then point the finger at Zara mainly just because their a company. The actions of their lawyers are definitely illegal and low tactics, but just remember, it was most likely a very low wage designer that lifted the artwork from the indie artist's site. He/She will most likely or was already fired. Zara will be fine.
CM30 10y ago
Don't most torrent sites run advertising? Yes some of that likely goes to maintain the server, but I doubt it all does in most cases. A lot of sites distributing content like this are set up as for profit ventures.
- tomp 10y ago
  I think that's a false dichotomy. If these sites were unambiguously legal, people (like myself) would donate money for the costs of running them. But the problem right now is, that even if a site wasn't making any money (no ads, no nothing), the operators could still be thrown into jail.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  What's the problem with making a profit from the legal provision of information? They're not infringing copyright themselves anymore than Google are - put "torrent $mediaName" (eg https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=torrent+mad+max+hash https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=to...) in to Google and you can get all you need to torrent that film.

by tomp 10y ago

eggy 10y ago

Per the arrest of the torrent site runner in today's news, it seems he may have made millions in ad revenue on the torrent site. The copying for non-commercial use is sometimes a moving boundary: For instance, you download a PDF of a technical book that is extremely expensive, or plain not available in your country, but you use it to just study on your own. All the way to you download some video, sound, music, code, or book and incorporate it into your YouTube channel or your site that generates revenue for you. Now it is blurred IMO. If you are parodying something, you may get away with it, but if you are leveraging it to avoid doing the work to generate the content yourself, you are stealing. It is commercial usage in this case, but many disagree it seems, but then point the finger at Zara mainly just because their a company. The actions of their lawyers are definitely illegal and low tactics, but just remember, it was most likely a very low wage designer that lifted the artwork from the indie artist's site. He/She will most likely or was already fired. Zara will be fine.

CM30 10y ago

Don't most torrent sites run advertising? Yes some of that likely goes to maintain the server, but I doubt it all does in most cases. A lot of sites distributing content like this are set up as for profit ventures.

tomp 10y ago
I think that's a false dichotomy. If these sites were unambiguously legal, people (like myself) would donate money for the costs of running them. But the problem right now is, that even if a site wasn't making any money (no ads, no nothing), the operators could still be thrown into jail.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
What's the problem with making a profit from the legal provision of information? They're not infringing copyright themselves anymore than Google are - put "torrent $mediaName" (eg https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=torrent+mad+max+hash https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=torrent+mad+max+hash&oq=to...) in to Google and you can get all you need to torrent that film.