3 ms·
> I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives It doesn't seem fair to me to make the seeder responsible for the illegal usage of the lea
by kybernetikos 10y ago
> I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives
It doesn't seem fair to me to make the seeder responsible for the illegal usage of the leacher. If it's legal for some people to connect to a torrent, then any crime committed by someone who connects and downloads something they are not allowed to download should be on them, not on the seeder. The alternative is to insist that the seeder is responsible for checking that each of their peers have the rights to the content, which is impractical.
- phkahler 10y agoThe seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.
- moopling 10y agothe kodi addons I've seen tend to connect to websites which host the content and display ads. Given that these don't involve seeding does that mean that the viewers aren't violating copyright, only the hosts?
- bumblebeard 10y agoThat's my understanding of how the law works in the US. In the UK though it sounds like you're breaking the law if you watch the stream as well.
- hunta2097 10y agoThat's how things used to be in the UK. UK copyright law was aimed at counterfeiters (seedy Joe who sells knock-off T-Shirts, CDs and tapes down the local pub). Now with the Digital Economy amendments, we have an extremely vague mention of "violating copyright". Are you violating copyright when consuming, or just when distributing? The act does not say. I expect there will be a few test cases to work this out but in the meantime, the press is having a field-day by promoting the worst case scenario for even minor infractions.
- kybernetikos 10y agoThe seeder should not be thought of as making a copy in my view, it's the downloader who makes the copy.