3 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - 0points 1y ago
    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.
    - gruez 1y ago
      But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?
      - 0points 1y ago
        Both are illegal, yes. That still doesn't make them the same thing. There are different shades of grey, etc. > Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"? I don't know what you mean by that.
        gruez 1y ago
        >I don't know what you mean by that. The whole point of the thread is that AI companies are getting away with piracy but individuals aren't. But the reality is that AI companies aren't getting away with it (a judge ruled that Anthropic must face trial over their use of pirated books). More specific to this thread is that claim that "ONLY downloading" hasn't resulted in fines for anyone. So far as I can tell, this is true. People are just quibbling over how someone who's torrenting somehow counts as "only downloading", even though their client is uploading.

by gruez 1y ago

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.
- 0points 1y ago
  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.
  - gruez 1y ago
    But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?
    - 0points 1y ago
      Both are illegal, yes. That still doesn't make them the same thing. There are different shades of grey, etc. > Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"? I don't know what you mean by that.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >I don't know what you mean by that. The whole point of the thread is that AI companies are getting away with piracy but individuals aren't. But the reality is that AI companies aren't getting away with it (a judge ruled that Anthropic must face trial over their use of pirated books). More specific to this thread is that claim that "ONLY downloading" hasn't resulted in fines for anyone. So far as I can tell, this is true. People are just quibbling over how someone who's torrenting somehow counts as "only downloading", even though their client is uploading.