4 ms·

Technically, the letter of the law only highlights transmission (uploading) as illegal in most copyright issues. Downloading most any material seems completely

Technically, the letter of the law only highlights transmission (uploading) as illegal in most copyright issues. Downloading most any material seems completely legal. That'd be neat to see: a bittorrent case which the user turned the upload to 0.0 . Are they infringing?

ljf 14y ago
I think not. No-one has ever been sued for downloading material from Rapidshare etc - they have all be bit torrent users who have been sharing as they downloaded.
- tsotha 14y ago
  That doesn't mean nobody can be sued for downloading material from Rapidshare. They're working their way down the ladder. First it was dedicated hosting sites like Napster and Pirate Bay. Next it was bittorrent users who were seeding. When the content providers have pretty much mined out that vein they'll go after the Rapidshare users. The real question is can they do it without losing money. My guess is they'll get the law changed so it's an administrative infraction under a certain amount, or they'll stick with people who've downloaded enough content the legal work can be paid.
DanBC 14y ago
Most downloading is illegal. But there is a difference between crimes that the police will arrest people over, and crimes for which someone 'wronged' can sue. For downloading the 'wronged' party can sue for damages, which would be loss of earnings for that one sale. Plus, I guess, costs. Uploading is easier to sue, because there the damages (the number of files made available) is much larger and it makes things more cost effective. It also (possibly?) acts as a deterrent to other uploaders. Criminal charges tend to come in when money is being made from copyright infringement. Selling burnt DVDs, for example. I'm being a bit vague because of the international audience. (I'm in the UK.)
- weel 14y ago
  "Crimes for which someone wronged can sue" are actually not crimes but torts. Copyright infringement is always a tort, but the conditions under which it becomes a criminal offense vary by jurisdiction.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>Downloading most any material seems completely legal. // You're making a single copy without a license. Fair use doctrine may apply depending what you're doing with that copy. There is a general exclusion against the right to copy works that are protected under the Berne Convention for example see Article 9 (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P140_25350 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#...): "Authors of literary and artistic works [...] have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." Distributors however can be more easily stung for punitive damages so until they run out of people who're 'distributing' some bits then they're unlikely to bother [as much] with mere* downloaders.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  I would argue that the illegal distributor is the one making the copy.
  - nucleardog 14y ago
    Well, it would be kind of argue to argue otherwise seeing as I'd think copying something necessitates having an instance of it in the first place. However, the downloader shows the intent to make the copy (they are requesting the blocks of the file) and are contributing to the copying (the uploader would not have made that specific copy without the downloader initiating it). I think that would muddy the waters more than enough.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    They have a copy, you through your action cause it to be duplicated to your machine. You make the copy, they present their copy to be duplicated without license. You both commit tortuous malfeasance unless you can claim an exclusion such as (in the USA) for news reporting or certain educational uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_...).
    - Dylan16807 14y ago

ljf 14y ago

I think not. No-one has ever been sued for downloading material from Rapidshare etc - they have all be bit torrent users who have been sharing as they downloaded.

tsotha 14y ago
That doesn't mean nobody can be sued for downloading material from Rapidshare. They're working their way down the ladder. First it was dedicated hosting sites like Napster and Pirate Bay. Next it was bittorrent users who were seeding. When the content providers have pretty much mined out that vein they'll go after the Rapidshare users. The real question is can they do it without losing money. My guess is they'll get the law changed so it's an administrative infraction under a certain amount, or they'll stick with people who've downloaded enough content the legal work can be paid.

DanBC 14y ago

Most downloading is illegal. But there is a difference between crimes that the police will arrest people over, and crimes for which someone 'wronged' can sue. For downloading the 'wronged' party can sue for damages, which would be loss of earnings for that one sale. Plus, I guess, costs. Uploading is easier to sue, because there the damages (the number of files made available) is much larger and it makes things more cost effective. It also (possibly?) acts as a deterrent to other uploaders. Criminal charges tend to come in when money is being made from copyright infringement. Selling burnt DVDs, for example. I'm being a bit vague because of the international audience. (I'm in the UK.)

weel 14y ago
"Crimes for which someone wronged can sue" are actually not crimes but torts. Copyright infringement is always a tort, but the conditions under which it becomes a criminal offense vary by jurisdiction.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>Downloading most any material seems completely legal. // You're making a single copy without a license. Fair use doctrine may apply depending what you're doing with that copy. There is a general exclusion against the right to copy works that are protected under the Berne Convention for example see Article 9 (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P140_25350 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#...): "Authors of literary and artistic works [...] have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." Distributors however can be more easily stung for punitive damages so until they run out of people who're 'distributing' some bits then they're unlikely to bother [as much] with mere* downloaders.

Dylan16807 14y ago
I would argue that the illegal distributor is the one making the copy.
- nucleardog 14y ago
  Well, it would be kind of argue to argue otherwise seeing as I'd think copying something necessitates having an instance of it in the first place. However, the downloader shows the intent to make the copy (they are requesting the blocks of the file) and are contributing to the copying (the uploader would not have made that specific copy without the downloader initiating it). I think that would muddy the waters more than enough.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  They have a copy, you through your action cause it to be duplicated to your machine. You make the copy, they present their copy to be duplicated without license. You both commit tortuous malfeasance unless you can claim an exclusion such as (in the USA) for news reporting or certain educational uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_...).
  - Dylan16807 14y ago