5 ms·

Thats not how piracy in germany works. Torrenting for german content is quite uncommon. Normally the pages either point to sites hosting a streamabale version o

Thats not how piracy in germany works. Torrenting for german content is quite uncommon. Normally the pages either point to sites hosting a streamabale version of the video content or point to a external file hoster (e.g. Rapidgator).

bonoboTP 2y ago
> Torrenting for german content is quite uncommon. Obviously, because, as the chain of comments above your shows, torrent users are easily caught and get fined to hundreds of euros per downloaded movie. Then they stop using torrent and tell all their friends about the experience. This has been going on for more than a decade, maybe two. So by now, German culture has adapted and people don't use torrents.
- yokaze 2y ago
  You don't get fined for downloading, you get cease-and-desist with a fine (?) from a lawyer representing the copyright owner for uploading. Downloading copyrighted is not illegal, offering is. You could try to argue technicalities in court, but that'll probably exceed the hundreds of Euro the copyright owner demands.
  - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    That's a very technical nitpick — GP's general point ('Obviously, because, as the chain of comments above your shows, torrent users are easily caught and get fined to hundreds of euros per downloaded movie.') stands.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    Downloading via torrents by default implies distribution (from technical point of view).
    - threecheese 2y ago
      My understanding is that one can download without seeding/uploading; is this inaccurate?
      - bonoboTP 2y ago
        Since the whole system relies on people seeding, even if this may be possible technically, clients don't tend to support it as a feature.
        yardstick 2y ago
        There are some services where you send a torrent file/magnet link and it’ll download the file for you, so you can download over HTTPS. I believe those particular services intentionally don’t reseed.
      - yardstick 2y ago
        You are correct. Years ago I did exactly this by modifying my client to never seed/share, and also to fake my reported sharing stats so the private trackers wouldn’t boot me for failing to share. Those were the days. Now, I no longer fear the ISP or copyright holder chasing me (seems ISPS and laws moved on where I am) and don’t bother with modifications any more.
        treyd 2y ago
        > also to fake my reported sharing stats so the private trackers wouldn’t boot me for failing to share. This would very quickly be identified by private trackers these days because the stats don't line up with your peers and earn you a permaban.
      - loeg 2y ago
        Correct. E.g., https://github.com/pmoor/bitthief https://github.com/pmoor/bitthief .
  - mediumsmart 2y ago
    The cease and desist fine (about 900 euros these days) is what the lawyer wants. Max return on investment for a single letter. You don’t have to react to this letter which will bring about the second letter with the generous offer to pay less, this repeats until around 340 Euro are reached. Then you may get a court order that states what the lawyer accuses you of and this you have to react to. The court just states this and gives you 2 checkboxes. If you check the one saying “I reject the accusation completely” the lawyer needs to decide. He invested some 40 euros into the court order but going to court is a different ballgame and not his main business model so they have to weigh the chances. The owner of the router that the file went through is responsible for access to the router. Since the owner has so far not said anything to his Defence there is a possibility that multiple people including family members had access to the router and the lawyer might, in court, be presented with a list of people and their addresses which satisfies the defendants task to erschütter the accusation for the court and leave the lawyer with the option to figure out whodunnit or rather who in the list is going to fold and pay. This is really not his business model. That said they do go to court and people get sentenced to pay the fine.
looperhacks 2y ago
You are downvoted, but from my experience, you are pretty correct. Most people I know will use a streaming site, then sharehosters (good old boerse comes to mind - Megaupload, Rapidshare and Uploaded were the big hosters I remember) I even know of more people using Usenet then torrents! The amount of work to use torrents safely just isn't worth it for most people.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  They are downvoted because it was an obvious and low-quality statement, as another comment outlined. Torrents publicly expose IPs and thus can be seen by copyright Nazis, but streaming/direct downloading has so far been safe.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    True but it is possible for them to capture one of these sites and go through the logs to check for IPs. So it would be best to use these with a VPN also. I'm not aware of this having happened for movie downloading but it has happened to data breach forums, the police in Holland have contacted some downloaders there after they took down a platform (raidforums): https://tweakers.net/nieuws/208638/politie-mailt-duizenden-nederlandse-gebruikers-van-raidforums-met-waarschuwing.html https://tweakers.net/nieuws/208638/politie-mailt-duizenden-n... (in Dutch, sorry) So it's not unprecedented and certainly within the legal realm of possibility even though this is a different country.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > The amount of work to use torrents safely just isn't worth it for most people. Using a VPN isn't a lot of work really? And that's more than sufficient. It does cost a bit of money but so does a good Usenet server. The problem with Usenet is the DMCA takedowns so you have to be really quick these days, after a day the content is gone.
loeg 2y ago
This thread[1] is talking about torrents in particular. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41330098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41330098
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

bonoboTP 2y ago

> Torrenting for german content is quite uncommon. Obviously, because, as the chain of comments above your shows, torrent users are easily caught and get fined to hundreds of euros per downloaded movie. Then they stop using torrent and tell all their friends about the experience. This has been going on for more than a decade, maybe two. So by now, German culture has adapted and people don't use torrents.

yokaze 2y ago
You don't get fined for downloading, you get cease-and-desist with a fine (?) from a lawyer representing the copyright owner for uploading. Downloading copyrighted is not illegal, offering is. You could try to argue technicalities in court, but that'll probably exceed the hundreds of Euro the copyright owner demands.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  That's a very technical nitpick — GP's general point ('Obviously, because, as the chain of comments above your shows, torrent users are easily caught and get fined to hundreds of euros per downloaded movie.') stands.
- Ray20 2y ago
  Downloading via torrents by default implies distribution (from technical point of view).
  - threecheese 2y ago
    My understanding is that one can download without seeding/uploading; is this inaccurate?
    - bonoboTP 2y ago
      Since the whole system relies on people seeding, even if this may be possible technically, clients don't tend to support it as a feature.
      - yardstick 2y ago
        There are some services where you send a torrent file/magnet link and it’ll download the file for you, so you can download over HTTPS. I believe those particular services intentionally don’t reseed.
    - yardstick 2y ago
      You are correct. Years ago I did exactly this by modifying my client to never seed/share, and also to fake my reported sharing stats so the private trackers wouldn’t boot me for failing to share. Those were the days. Now, I no longer fear the ISP or copyright holder chasing me (seems ISPS and laws moved on where I am) and don’t bother with modifications any more.
      - treyd 2y ago
        > also to fake my reported sharing stats so the private trackers wouldn’t boot me for failing to share. This would very quickly be identified by private trackers these days because the stats don't line up with your peers and earn you a permaban.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Correct. E.g., https://github.com/pmoor/bitthief https://github.com/pmoor/bitthief .
- mediumsmart 2y ago
  The cease and desist fine (about 900 euros these days) is what the lawyer wants. Max return on investment for a single letter. You don’t have to react to this letter which will bring about the second letter with the generous offer to pay less, this repeats until around 340 Euro are reached. Then you may get a court order that states what the lawyer accuses you of and this you have to react to. The court just states this and gives you 2 checkboxes. If you check the one saying “I reject the accusation completely” the lawyer needs to decide. He invested some 40 euros into the court order but going to court is a different ballgame and not his main business model so they have to weigh the chances. The owner of the router that the file went through is responsible for access to the router. Since the owner has so far not said anything to his Defence there is a possibility that multiple people including family members had access to the router and the lawyer might, in court, be presented with a list of people and their addresses which satisfies the defendants task to erschütter the accusation for the court and leave the lawyer with the option to figure out whodunnit or rather who in the list is going to fold and pay. This is really not his business model. That said they do go to court and people get sentenced to pay the fine.

looperhacks 2y ago

You are downvoted, but from my experience, you are pretty correct. Most people I know will use a streaming site, then sharehosters (good old boerse comes to mind - Megaupload, Rapidshare and Uploaded were the big hosters I remember) I even know of more people using Usenet then torrents! The amount of work to use torrents safely just isn't worth it for most people.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
They are downvoted because it was an obvious and low-quality statement, as another comment outlined. Torrents publicly expose IPs and thus can be seen by copyright Nazis, but streaming/direct downloading has so far been safe.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  True but it is possible for them to capture one of these sites and go through the logs to check for IPs. So it would be best to use these with a VPN also. I'm not aware of this having happened for movie downloading but it has happened to data breach forums, the police in Holland have contacted some downloaders there after they took down a platform (raidforums): https://tweakers.net/nieuws/208638/politie-mailt-duizenden-nederlandse-gebruikers-van-raidforums-met-waarschuwing.html https://tweakers.net/nieuws/208638/politie-mailt-duizenden-n... (in Dutch, sorry) So it's not unprecedented and certainly within the legal realm of possibility even though this is a different country.
wkat4242 2y ago
> The amount of work to use torrents safely just isn't worth it for most people. Using a VPN isn't a lot of work really? And that's more than sufficient. It does cost a bit of money but so does a good Usenet server. The problem with Usenet is the DMCA takedowns so you have to be really quick these days, after a day the content is gone.

loeg 2y ago

This thread[1] is talking about torrents in particular. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41330098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41330098

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]