3 ms·
Unless you are using it as an example of how your solution works differently. Which they are. I don't see anywhere that they are claiming their business is for
by mden 13y ago
Unless you are using it as an example of how your solution works differently. Which they are.
I don't see anywhere that they are claiming their business is for copyright infringement, in fact, it doesn't seem like it's for mass distribution at all unless you give out your key, and then you just defeat the point of the service.
- abbasmehdi 13y agoIt's clearly positioned as an alternative to a tool that prevents copyright infringement. I don't think it is obvious that their intention here is not to present an alternative that facilitates infringement [0]. It seems like they are even proud of that [1]. [0] I am not saying it is good or bad, right or wrong. [1] Observing, not judging.
- mjs7231 13y agoThey are not claiming you should use it for infringement. They are however advertising that it works great for infringement. "That’s how [they] like it" It doesn't really matter what you or I think anyway. If it came down to being sued by a copyright holder, a blog post like this is definitely not going to help their case.
- ivanca 13y agoOf course it's not going to help; but mostly because humans are driven by emotion. Sharing copyrighted material is not a crime unless is an illicit sharing, that is, when you do not hold a license that allows you to do so. So there are many exceptions such as: when you download a song that explicitly allow copies for any of your own devices; the same applies when you are the copyright holder, or when the license does not cover the country where you live.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]