3 ms·

Sure, it was quite widespread in early 2000s, with tens of thousands people sued. While the main poster cases like the $675000 award of Sony vs Tenenbaum also i

Sure, it was quite widespread in early 2000s, with tens of thousands people sued. While the main poster cases like the $675000 award of Sony vs Tenenbaum also included assertions of distribution (AFAIK not proving any specific upload, but only "making available"), there are cases where only dowloads were asserted such as Cassi Hunt (https://www.acslaw.org/?post_type=acsblog&p=3005 https://www.acslaw.org/?post_type=acsblog&p=3005) and others, and the key part is the many thousands of people who settled for ~$3000 each, which I'd count as "successfully suing" even if the case never went to a court, as that acts as mass enforcement through civil means that has at least some impact on how people behave.

stale2002 3y ago
> people who settled for ~$3000 each So then not a single instance of an actual judge ruling that the downloading part was civilly illegal or requires payment civilly? If no, then my point stands. Anyone can make a threat and get money out of someone. I could threaten you right now with horrible legal consequences for the completely bogus "civil crime" of being wrong on hacker news! But you giving in to me, and giving me money, isn't a ruling or precedent that action X (in this case "being wrong on hacker news") is illegal.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  All the trial cases which went through the courts e.g. Sony vs Tenenbaum also were judged that the downloading part was also infringing activity, it's just that those defendants did both downloading and [offering for] distribution.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Gotcha. So then you could have instead just said. "I agree with you completely, 100%, that there has not been a singular case in the history of the USA copyright law where a judge has ruled against someone who only did the downloading part". I am glad after half a dozen posts I was finally able to get you to agree to this. You could have just said that from the beginning really. I am happy that you agree with me on my main point!

stale2002 3y ago

> people who settled for ~$3000 each So then not a single instance of an actual judge ruling that the downloading part was civilly illegal or requires payment civilly? If no, then my point stands. Anyone can make a threat and get money out of someone. I could threaten you right now with horrible legal consequences for the completely bogus "civil crime" of being wrong on hacker news! But you giving in to me, and giving me money, isn't a ruling or precedent that action X (in this case "being wrong on hacker news") is illegal.

PeterisP 3y ago
All the trial cases which went through the courts e.g. Sony vs Tenenbaum also were judged that the downloading part was also infringing activity, it's just that those defendants did both downloading and [offering for] distribution.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Gotcha. So then you could have instead just said. "I agree with you completely, 100%, that there has not been a singular case in the history of the USA copyright law where a judge has ruled against someone who only did the downloading part". I am glad after half a dozen posts I was finally able to get you to agree to this. You could have just said that from the beginning really. I am happy that you agree with me on my main point!