4 ms·

"Whether you agree with the laws or not, file sharing stuff you don't have a right to have a copy of is, in fact, illegal." The thing is, if the courts allow f

"Whether you agree with the laws or not, file sharing stuff you don't have a right to have a copy of is, in fact, illegal." The thing is, if the courts allow for the honeypots then people who want to download things that they DO have the right to a copy of can also be fined. There are plenty of freely (free as in both beer and speech) available works that people download via bittorrent. If Titan Media has masqueraded their porn as something that is freely available would you feel the same way?

ChuckMcM 15y ago
"If Titan Media has masqueraded their porn as something that is freely available would you feel the same way?" Of course not. But that isn't what they did, and if they did it wouldn't really be a 'honeypot' is now would it? There are actually laws against creating an 'attractive nuisance.' And while I know the 'information wants to be free' crowd hates the message I did say stuff you you don't have a right to have a copy of explicitly. And like it or not, going over to a friends house, and ripping one of their CDs which they bought and taking home the MP3s is not a write the distributor/seller of the CD gave you, and its not "fair use" by any definition. I get that people disagree with copyright law, I disagree too, but I don't subscribe to the theory that one only has to obey laws they agree with. If you want to be civilly disobedient like folks who were fighting for their civil rights then you want to be arrested and charged so that you can bring visibility to your protest, however if you copy a CD or video or game because you think someone is charging to much or is unrealistic in their opinion of its value, then its you, the copyright violator, who is wrong.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Thing is, if Titan Media is the one distributing their porn, whether under the original name or something else, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unauthorized. That would lead to the absurd conclusion that they're not authorized to distribute their own works. Those who download a copy uploaded by the copyright holder should therefore be authorized. Intent simply isn't an element of copyright infringement as far as I know. That, unfortunately, seems likely to hurt the lady in question. They should be doing discovery and exploring whether or not Titan Media is, in fact, responsible for this upload or not. Admitting to downloading the file probably isn't going to help her. Even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent themselves. I have a sad feeling that this will turn into yet another case where acting pro se was a bad idea.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

"If Titan Media has masqueraded their porn as something that is freely available would you feel the same way?" Of course not. But that isn't what they did, and if they did it wouldn't really be a 'honeypot' is now would it? There are actually laws against creating an 'attractive nuisance.' And while I know the 'information wants to be free' crowd hates the message I did say stuff you you don't have a right to have a copy of explicitly. And like it or not, going over to a friends house, and ripping one of their CDs which they bought and taking home the MP3s is not a write the distributor/seller of the CD gave you, and its not "fair use" by any definition. I get that people disagree with copyright law, I disagree too, but I don't subscribe to the theory that one only has to obey laws they agree with. If you want to be civilly disobedient like folks who were fighting for their civil rights then you want to be arrested and charged so that you can bring visibility to your protest, however if you copy a CD or video or game because you think someone is charging to much or is unrealistic in their opinion of its value, then its you, the copyright violator, who is wrong.

Natsu 15y ago
Thing is, if Titan Media is the one distributing their porn, whether under the original name or something else, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unauthorized. That would lead to the absurd conclusion that they're not authorized to distribute their own works. Those who download a copy uploaded by the copyright holder should therefore be authorized. Intent simply isn't an element of copyright infringement as far as I know. That, unfortunately, seems likely to hurt the lady in question. They should be doing discovery and exploring whether or not Titan Media is, in fact, responsible for this upload or not. Admitting to downloading the file probably isn't going to help her. Even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent themselves. I have a sad feeling that this will turn into yet another case where acting pro se was a bad idea.