3 ms·

I don't think this happened because the girl downloaded music. She got into trouble because she used BitTorrent which, by default, makes you upload everything y

by kijin 14y ago

I don't think this happened because the girl downloaded music. She got into trouble because she used BitTorrent which, by default, makes you upload everything you download. The MAFIAA goes after uploaders, not downloaders. If the girl had used something like MegaUpload to download all her music, all her troubles would never have happened. Therefore, I don't think it would change anything (from a legal point of view, although IANAL) if the father could show receipts for the actual CD. If the girl ripped a CD and put it up on BitTorrent, that would still be illegal regardless of whether she paid for the CD.

spaminator 14y ago
They go after downloaders do <10 seconds of Googleing to see.
- aes256 14y ago
  Depends on the country. In the UK I can't think of any cases of downloaders being pursued by the BPI (British equivalent of the RIAA). They have deliberately erred on the side of 'educating' consumers about legal alternatives to piracy rather than dragging them through the courts. Heck, the authorities took down Oink's Pink Palace, arrested the owner, then ended up dropping all charges against him and not pursuing any action against the site's users.
jlgreco 14y ago
In the US they have (recently unsuccessfully, thank god) gone after people who did not upload but merely "made available" for upload. The idea being that even if you didn't upload, but there was the possibility that you could have, they still will come after you. How can this work in the context of bittorrent? Well, imagine an unpopular file with say 5 seeders, all with 100% of the file, and no leachers. You fire up the torrent, download the file from 5 different people, "seed" for a few minutes with no takers because you were off making dinner, then return to your computer and close your torrent client. You have just "made available" for 5 minutes, even though you never distributed anything. Yeah, this crap has been thrown out recently, but that won't stop them from sending you "pre-litigation letters" demanding money, or from even hauling you off to court and forcing you to defend yourself.

by kijin 14y ago

spaminator 14y ago

They go after downloaders do <10 seconds of Googleing to see.

aes256 14y ago
Depends on the country. In the UK I can't think of any cases of downloaders being pursued by the BPI (British equivalent of the RIAA). They have deliberately erred on the side of 'educating' consumers about legal alternatives to piracy rather than dragging them through the courts. Heck, the authorities took down Oink's Pink Palace, arrested the owner, then ended up dropping all charges against him and not pursuing any action against the site's users.

jlgreco 14y ago

In the US they have (recently unsuccessfully, thank god) gone after people who did not upload but merely "made available" for upload. The idea being that even if you didn't upload, but there was the possibility that you could have, they still will come after you. How can this work in the context of bittorrent? Well, imagine an unpopular file with say 5 seeders, all with 100% of the file, and no leachers. You fire up the torrent, download the file from 5 different people, "seed" for a few minutes with no takers because you were off making dinner, then return to your computer and close your torrent client. You have just "made available" for 5 minutes, even though you never distributed anything. Yeah, this crap has been thrown out recently, but that won't stop them from sending you "pre-litigation letters" demanding money, or from even hauling you off to court and forcing you to defend yourself.