2 ms·

> The trouble is that some subset of the usage of P2P apps -- even for copyrighted works -- probably is fair use. Imagine some history teacher downloading Linco

by chc 13y ago

> The trouble is that some subset of the usage of P2P apps -- even for copyrighted works -- probably is fair use. Imagine some history teacher downloading Lincoln to make excerpts for classroom use in order to avoid having to personally use DeCSS on the DVD. It seems to me the real trouble is that, with torrents, that history teacher will also be giving unauthorized copies to others, who are most likely not also history teachers.

nitrogen 13y ago
It seems to me the real trouble is that, with torrents, that history teacher will also be giving unauthorized copies to others, who are most likely not also history teachers. It seems to me that, in the future, a sane legal system should ignore this technical aspect of torrents. Merely participating in an existing swarm should not be considered distribution.
- chc 13y ago
  So none of the uploaders in a swarm, no matter how many times they have shared the file, will be considered to have shared the file? Bittorrent will just be impenetrable to the law? I agree that copyright law needs reform, but I don't see how granting blanket immunity to Bittorrent users makes sense.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    I did say existing swarm. I don't see how prosecuting downloaders as though they were uploaders makes sense either, even if they end up seeding due to the way the technology works.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> It seems to me the real trouble is that, with torrents, that history teacher will also be giving unauthorized copies to others, who are most likely not also history teachers. I don't see how that gets you around the problem. You would still have to litigate the fair use defenses of downloaders before you could charge anyone, and if you find a downloader without a legitimate fair use defense, how are you supposed to prove after the fact who uploaded to that specific downloader? I also don't understand the common perception that it should be the uploader who is liable for infringement. The downloader is the one who best knows the character of the use and therefore whether it would be permitted under the law, so it makes sense for the downloader to have the liability. And liability for the downloader is the one that doesn't require twisting the rights granted under the copyright act into a knot to find liability -- downloading should be reproduction because the downloader is creating a new copy on the local hard drive. Uploading is.. what exactly? The downloader is making the reproduction/copy. No copy is ever "distributed," since the uploader's copy and the new downloader's copy never move from their respective locations. No one is displaying or performing the work in public or creating a derivative work. What does that leave that doesn't require fudging to make it fit?

by chc 13y ago

nitrogen 13y ago

It seems to me the real trouble is that, with torrents, that history teacher will also be giving unauthorized copies to others, who are most likely not also history teachers. It seems to me that, in the future, a sane legal system should ignore this technical aspect of torrents. Merely participating in an existing swarm should not be considered distribution.

chc 13y ago
So none of the uploaders in a swarm, no matter how many times they have shared the file, will be considered to have shared the file? Bittorrent will just be impenetrable to the law? I agree that copyright law needs reform, but I don't see how granting blanket immunity to Bittorrent users makes sense.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  I did say existing swarm. I don't see how prosecuting downloaders as though they were uploaders makes sense either, even if they end up seeding due to the way the technology works.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> It seems to me the real trouble is that, with torrents, that history teacher will also be giving unauthorized copies to others, who are most likely not also history teachers. I don't see how that gets you around the problem. You would still have to litigate the fair use defenses of downloaders before you could charge anyone, and if you find a downloader without a legitimate fair use defense, how are you supposed to prove after the fact who uploaded to that specific downloader? I also don't understand the common perception that it should be the uploader who is liable for infringement. The downloader is the one who best knows the character of the use and therefore whether it would be permitted under the law, so it makes sense for the downloader to have the liability. And liability for the downloader is the one that doesn't require twisting the rights granted under the copyright act into a knot to find liability -- downloading should be reproduction because the downloader is creating a new copy on the local hard drive. Uploading is.. what exactly? The downloader is making the reproduction/copy. No copy is ever "distributed," since the uploader's copy and the new downloader's copy never move from their respective locations. No one is displaying or performing the work in public or creating a derivative work. What does that leave that doesn't require fudging to make it fit?