4 ms·
I've followed the issue in the US since the early 2000s as an activist and policy expert. I'm not familiar with the state of play outside the US, but the US is
by holmesworcester 3y ago
I've followed the issue in the US since the early 2000s as an activist and policy expert.
I'm not familiar with the state of play outside the US, but the US is one of the stricter jurisdictions in this regard, for reasons that have mostly to do with sophisticated corruption.
I'm responding to the "for me not for thee" and the top comment about there being an inconsistency between the treatment of large companies and the treatment of individuals in this case.
Unless people are typically punished for downloading and using copyrighted content, there is no such inconsistency. They are not, so there is not.
Copyright troll lawsuits have been fairly public and widely covered in the tech press, and most criminal prosecutions come with a formulaic, gloating press release from the law enforcement folks responsible. So it's pretty easy to follow this stuff.
- slowmovintarget 3y agoAre you forgetting all the DMCA lawsuits slapping individuals who downloaded MP3s with tens of thousands of dollars? These were not corporations, these were teenagers still living with their parents who pulled music files off the likes of Napster. The DMCA does allow harassment by copyright holders to individuals suspected of infringement. It's just that most people like authors wouldn't blow their legal budget suing kids.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ericd 3y agoMy understanding is that the issue there was that they were simultaneously sharing those MP3s, as they were downloading them. Which is to say, I think the person you're responding to is correct about the difference between sharing and downloading, but I'm not a lawyer.