5 ms·

> Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't

> Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing. You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are that you are taking part in distribution rather than just 'downloading for personal use'.

jdiff 1y ago
Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.
0points 1y ago
> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/questions-and-answers-regarding-illegal-file-sharing-and-download https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-of-fines-for-swedish-pirates https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").
  - 0points 1y ago
    Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      There is indeed, but not when you’re torrenting (i.e. you can’t download without also uploading).
      - 0points 1y ago
        Even when you are torrenting, there is a clear distinction of the different roles. Copying from another comment I wrote here: > These are two separate things: > * Making content available for unauthorized distribution > * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available > Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.
        d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Replied to your other comment (sorry, didn’t clock that we had two threads ongoing)
- gruez 1y ago
  >with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Remember, both non-commercial copyright infringement lawsuits and parking tickets are tried in civil court, which means the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do. How hard could it be to keep DHCP logs? Assuming they exist at all, what would cause it to be incorrect?
      - d1sxeyes 1y ago
        I'm sure they exist. I think the point is more that you shouldn't need to trust your ISP's record-keeping to avoid life-alteringly big fines.
  - 0points 1y ago
    You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent. For all intents and purposes, participating in the torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all torrent clients upload as you download.
jajko 1y ago
You contradict yourself. There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves, and made into example case with massive fines. If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading. Property rights holders don't care about details, as long as you tick the box of sending a single packet to somebody, off to court with ya.
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  > There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves If this is true, I have been unable to find any. Can you please share? In all of the cases I was able to find, the huge fines were based on also uploading. > If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading This is a bit patronising, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My point is that the only prosecutions I've been able to find are where they were able to prove uploading as well as downloading (and yes, the fact that someone used BitTorrent makes it a slam-dunk, because the protocol makes it impossible to download without also uploading). Are you trying to argue that someone who torrents a copyrighted work doesn't also share it?

jdiff 1y ago

Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.

0points 1y ago

> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/questions-and-answers-regarding-illegal-file-sharing-and-download https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-of-fines-for-swedish-pirates https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...

d1sxeyes 1y ago
Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").
- 0points 1y ago
  Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    There is indeed, but not when you’re torrenting (i.e. you can’t download without also uploading).
    - 0points 1y ago
      Even when you are torrenting, there is a clear distinction of the different roles. Copying from another comment I wrote here: > These are two separate things: > * Making content available for unauthorized distribution > * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available > Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.
      - d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Replied to your other comment (sorry, didn’t clock that we had two threads ongoing)
gruez 1y ago
>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Remember, both non-commercial copyright infringement lawsuits and parking tickets are tried in civil court, which means the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt".
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  DHCP addresses often shuffle on reboots. I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >I don't trust ISPs to keep completely accurate records or give them out in a correct manner if they do. How hard could it be to keep DHCP logs? Assuming they exist at all, what would cause it to be incorrect?
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      I'm sure they exist. I think the point is more that you shouldn't need to trust your ISP's record-keeping to avoid life-alteringly big fines.
- 0points 1y ago
  You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent. For all intents and purposes, participating in the torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all torrent clients upload as you download.

jajko 1y ago

You contradict yourself. There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves, and made into example case with massive fines. If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading. Property rights holders don't care about details, as long as you tick the box of sending a single packet to somebody, off to court with ya.

d1sxeyes 1y ago
> There were numerous public cases where they chased people downloading few mp3s just for themselves If this is true, I have been unable to find any. Can you please share? In all of the cases I was able to find, the huge fines were based on also uploading. > If you don't understand how torrents work on technical level I suggest at least some shallow reading This is a bit patronising, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My point is that the only prosecutions I've been able to find are where they were able to prove uploading as well as downloading (and yes, the fact that someone used BitTorrent makes it a slam-dunk, because the protocol makes it impossible to download without also uploading). Are you trying to argue that someone who torrents a copyrighted work doesn't also share it?